Indeed, Inc. v. javeed khan
Claim Number: FA1803001774898
Complainant is Indeed, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Rebecca R. McCurry of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is javeed khan (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <indeedjobs.info>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 7, 2018; the Forum received payment on March 7, 2018.
On March 8, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <indeedjobs.info> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 March 9, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 29, 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@indeedjobs.info. Also on March 9, 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 April 3, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <indeedjobs.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s INDEED mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <indeedjobs.info> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <indeedjobs.info> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Indeed, Inc., uses the INDEED mark to promote its job site, and holds a registration for the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,141,242, registered Sep. 12, 2006).
Respondent registered the <indeedjobs.info> domain name on February 13, 2018, and it does not resolve to an active website.
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 Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the INDEED mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration with the USPTO. See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <indeedjobs.info> domain name merely adds the generic term “jobs” and the gTLD “.info” to Complainant’s INDEED mark. These changes do not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Morgan Stanley v. Eugene Sykorsky / private person, FA 1651901 (Forum Jan. 19, 2016) (concluding that the addition of a generic term and top level domain to a trademark is inconsequential under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.) Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <indeedjobs.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s INDEED mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”).
Complainant alleges that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its INDEED mark. The WHOIS information of record for <indeedjobs.info> lists “Javeed khan” as the registrant. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <indeedjobs.info> domain name. See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name); see also State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)).
Complainant claims that Respondent fails to use the <indeedjobs.info> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because it does not resolve to an active website. Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name’s resolving website dispalying the message, “website coming soon! Please check back soon to see if the site is available.” Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is inactively holding the domain name and fails to use the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (finding that a respondent’s non-use of a domain name that is identical to a complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent has established a pattern of bad faith registrations and registered the <indeedjobs.info> domain name in bad faith as well. Complainant alleges that Respondent is also the registrant of the <indeedjob.info> domain name, which was ordered transferred to Complainant in the UDRP decision Indeed, Inc. v. javeed khan, FA 1763184 (Forum Jan. 9, 2018). Past adverse UDRP decisions may indicate that a respondent has established a pattern of bad faith registrations. See Fandango, LLC v. 21562719 Ont Ltd, FA1209001464081 (Forum Nov. 2, 2012) (“Respondent’s past conduct and UDRP history establishes a pattern of registered domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has established a pattern of bad faith registrations of which the registration of the <indeedjobs.info> domain name is a part.
Complainant claims that Respondent uses the <indeedjobs.info> domain name to attract Internet users for commercial gain by causing confusion between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s INDEED mark. Complainant argues that although the domain name is currently inactively held, Respondent will use the domain name in connection with a phishing scheme, as it did in the <indeedjob.info> case. Use of a domain name to cause confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement therein may be evidence of bad faith registration and use even if the respondent is not actively using the domain name. See Phat Fashions, LLC v. Kruger, FA 96193 (Forum Dec. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) even though the respondent has not used the domain name because “it makes no sense whatever to wait until it actually ‘uses’ the name, when inevitably, when there is such use, it will create the confusion described in the Policy”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent will likely use the domain name to create confusion between the domain name and Complainant’s INDEED mark and thus has registered the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant also argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark. Complainant contends its INDEED mark is famous and has created significant good will and consumer recognition because over 200 million people from over 60 countries visit its <indeed.com> website every month. Additionally, Complainant argues that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the INDEED mark as it was previously involved in an adverse UDRP decision involving the mark. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights when it registered the <indeedjobs.info> domain name, in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. Michael Bach, FA 1426668 (Forum March 2, 2012) (“Although Complainant has not submitted evidence indicating actual knowledge by Respondent of its rights in the trademark, the Panel finds that, due to the fame of Complainant’s [VICTORIA’S SECRET] mark, Respondent had actual notice at the time of the domain name registration and therefore registered the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <indeedjobs.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: April 4, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page