Crunchbase, Inc. v. zain rao / Mr
Claim Number: FA1802001772724
Complainant is Crunchbase, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Holly Pranger of Pranger Law Group, California, USA. Respondent is zain rao / Mr (“Respondent”), Pakistan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <crunchbasenews.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 20, 2018; the Forum received payment on February 20, 2018.
On February 21, 2018, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <crunchbasenews.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On February 23, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 15, 2018 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@crunchbasenews.com. Also on February 23, 2018, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 21, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Crunchbase, Inc. is a leading technology media property, dedicated to profiling startups, reviewing new Internet products, and breaking tech news.
Complainant has rights in the CRUNCHBASE mark based upon registration with the United State Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,099,078, registered on Feb.14, 2012) and otherwise.
Respondent’s <crunchbasenews.com> is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s CRUNCHBASE mark as the domain name includes the mark in its entirety and adds the descriptive term “news” and appends the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <crunchbasenews.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainant has not granted Respondent permission or license to use the CRUNCHBASE mark for any purpose. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent’s using the disputed domain name to advertise unrelated products.
Respondent has registered and used the <crunchbasenews.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent is using the domain name to confuse Internet users as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website to advertise products unrelated to Complainant for its own commercial gain. Further, given Complainant’s registrations, prior use, and notoriety associated with the CRUNCHBASE mark, Respondent had constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark when it registered the domain name at-issue.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the CRUNCHBASE mark as demonstrated by its registration of such mark with the USPTO.
Complainant’s rights in the CRUNCHBASE mark existed prior to Respondent’s registration of the at-issue domain name.
Respondent uses the <crunchbasenews.com> domain name to divert internet traffic intended for Complainant to Respondent’s website which offers products for sale through advertisements.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s ownership of USPTO trademark registration for the CRUNCHBASE trademark evidences its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(I). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”).
Additionally, Respondent’s domain name contains Complainant’s entire CRUNCHBASE trademark followed by the generic term “news” and the top level domain name “.com”. The differences between the <crunchbasenews.com>domain name and Complainant’s CRUNCHBASE trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) Respondent’s <crunchbasenews.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CRUNCHBASE trademark. See Sanofi-Aventis v. 24-7-Commerce.com, FA0571951 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (Generic words such as “cheap” and “shop” are insufficient to negate a finding of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).); see also, Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the <crunchbasenews.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies its registrant as “zain rao / Mr.” The record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by the <crunchbasenews.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Furthermore, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that is visually similar to Complainant’s official website and displays third party advertisements. This use of the domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering, noncommercial or fair use per Policies ¶ 4(c)(i) &(iii). See TGI Friday’s of Minnesota, Inc. v. Tulip Company / Tulip Trading Company, FA 1691369 (Forum Oct. 10, 2016) (”Respondent uses the domain for a parking page displaying various links that consumers are likely to associate with Complainant, but that simply redirect to additional advertisements and links that divert traffic to third-party websites not affiliated with Complainant… The Panel here finds that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.”).
Given the foregoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <crunchbasenews.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, Policy ¶ 4(b) specific bad faith circumstances as well as other circumstance are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith regarding the at-issue domain name, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
Respondent uses its confusingly similar <crunchbasenews.com>domain name to direct internet users seeking Complainant to a web presence where Respondent advertises products related to the CRUNCHBASE trademark. Such use of the confusingly similar domain name improperly trades on the goodwill associated with Complainant’s CRUNCHBASE trademark by intentionally confusing internet users as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the <crunchbasenews.com> domain name and its referenced website. Using the domain name in this manner demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 3M Company v. Nguyen Hoang Son / Bussiness and Marketing, FA1408001575815 (Forum Sept. 18, 2014) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host sponsored advertisements for Amazon, through which the respondent presumably profited, indicated that the respondent had used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also, Cigna Intellectual Property, Inc. v. Yun Sung Lee, D2003-1042 (WIPO, March 3,2004) (“[b]y advertising products which might be generally associated with the Complainant's mark, it appears that the Respondent is attempting for commercial gain to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark”).
Additionally, Respondent registered <crunchbasenews.com> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in CRUNCHBASE. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident given the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and given Respondent’s mimicking of Complainant’s official website on the website addressed by the at-issue domain name. It follows that Respondent intentionally registered the at-issue domain name to improperly exploit its trademark value, rather than for some benign reason. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <crunchbasenews.com>domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <crunchbasenews.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: March 22, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page