Quora, Inc. v. Jon Ban
Claim Number: FA2205001997021
Complainant is Quora, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Anne Peck of Cooley LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Jon Ban (“Respondent”), represented by Cohen IP Law Group, PC, California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <coinquora.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 19, 2022; the Forum received payment on May 19, 2022.
On May 20, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <coinquora.com> 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 May 23, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 7, 2022 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@coinquora.com. Also on May 23, 2022, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 7, 2022.
On July 12, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
On July 12, 2022, Complainant filed an additional submission. On July 13, 2022, the Panel issued a Procedural Order that Respondent may submit an additional submission in response to Complainant’s additional filing, if necessary, setting a deadline of July 19, 2022. On July 18, 2022, Respondent submitted an additional submission.
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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
i) Complainant operates an online question-and-answer and information sharing learning platform. Complainant has rights in the QUORA mark through its registration with multiple trademark agencies including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,119,033, registered on March 27, 2012; European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) Reg. No. 1,048,976, registered on July 26, 2011). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUORA mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety while adding the descriptive term “coin” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
ii) Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its QUORA mark in the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate fair use, but instead uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and offer services which compete with Complainant.
iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent diverts Internet users for commercial gain while creating a false sense of affiliation with Complainant. Additionally, Respondent causes initial interest confusion. Furthermore, Respondent failed to respond to Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the QUORA mark.
B. Respondent
i) The disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it added the term “coin”, which is sufficient to differentiate the domain name from the mark. Additionally, Respondent’s use of the word “Quora” has a different pronunciation than Complainant’s use.
ii) Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent’s services are not the same as Complainant’s. Additionally, Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.
iii) Respondent has registered and uses the disputed domain name in good faith because Respondent’s services are not in competition with Complainant and Respondent had no knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark.
C. Additional Submissions
Complainant’s Additional Submissions
i) Respondent does not use the disputed domain as a “unitary term” nor has it provided any evidence that the public would pronounce “QUORA” differently from “QUORA” in “COINQUORA.” Since launching its infringing website in October 2020, Respondent has displayed the disputed domain name as a compound phrase of two distinct words—COIN and QUORA—with the “QUORA” portion always emphasized. Respondent has continued to emphasize the QUORA portion of COINQUORA by displaying the terms in two different colors.
iii) Complainant’s QUORA mark was used and registered for services competing with or related to those offered by Respondent, including prior to the disputed domain’s registration, and thus Respondent’s use of the disputed domain is not a bona fide offering of services. A brief search of the Google database reveals that at least as early as 2014, Complainant provided webpages with information on the topics of blockchain and cryptocurrency.
iv) Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time he/she registered and began using the disputed domain name. Whether Complainant’s trademark registrations included the specific terms “blockchain” or “cryptocurrency” at the time of Respondent’s adoption is irrelevant. Prior ownership of trademark registrations that explicitly include certain terms relating to Respondent’s offerings is not a prerequisite to a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a-b).
v) A UDRP action through Forum is the appropriate venue for this dispute and the role of the UAE and U.S. trademark offices is irrelevant. Complainant was using QUORA mark and obtained registered rights in the mark in the UAE and U.S. prior to Respondent’s registration and adoption of the disputed domain name. Respondent rushed to file its first trademark application for the disputed domain name in the UAE on October 13, 2021. Complainant proceeded to oppose that application on November 11, 2021 and it remains pending. Respondent also rushed to file for various UAE business licenses, amend its logo, and subsequently filed a U.S. trademark application, which Complainant has also opposed through an accepted letter of protest. Each of these actions and attempts were failed to legitimize Respondent after being put on notice that it was infringing Complainant’s trademark rights. Respondent’s trademark applications and the role of the UAE and U.S. Trademark Office should bear no weight in this matter.
Respondent’s Additional Submissions
i) It is not appropriate for panelists to make determinations where the determination would require resolution of a factual dispute. This case is not a “clear cut case” where the resolution would not benefit from discovery; there exists a genuine dispute regarding whether Complainant’s services are sufficiently related to Respondent’s services.
ii) Complainant does not sincerely offer blockchain or cryptocurrency media services. Complainant’s contention that they offer any service other than the underlying “webpage for users to ask and answer questions on a variety of topics,” is misguided. Therefore, the inquiry is not whether Complainant’s “Spaces” are similar to Respondent’s services, but whether Complainant’s “ask and answer” webpage is similar to Respondent’s on-line cryptocurrency and blockchain news, information, and education services.
iii) Considering Respondent’s pending trademark application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), a dispute involving such material questions of fact like the similarity of the parties’ services is better left to resolution in that forum.
1. The disputed domain name was registered on March 24, 2020.
2. Complainant has established rights in the QUORA mark through its registration with multiple trademark agencies including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,119,033, registered on March 27, 2012; European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) Reg. No. 1,048,976, registered on July 26, 2011).
3. Complainant is a multi-national corporation based in the United States of America and provides the question-and-answer, on-line, collaborative, information sharing and learning, Internet and mobile platform where questions are asked, answered, followed, and edited by Internet users, either factually or in the form of opinions or personal experiences, on virtually any topic – including blockchain technology and cryptocurrency.
4. Complainant began to provide webpages with information on the topics of blockchain and cryptocurrency in 2014.
5. Respondent used the disputed domain name in connection with its media operations regarding the latest news and updates in the crypto and blockchain industry.
6. Respondent has displayed the disputed domain name as a compound phrase of two distinct words—COIN and QUORA—with the “QUORA” portion emphasized. Respondent has highlighted the QUORA portion of COINQUORA by displaying the terms in two different colors.
7. Shortly after Respondent’s receipt of a cease-and-desist letter from Complainant on October 10, 2021, Respondent filed its first trademark application for the disputed domain name in the UAE on October 13, 2021. Respondent also filed for various UAE business licenses, and subsequently filed a U.S. trademark application.
8. Complainant proceeded to oppose Respondent’s UAE and U.S. trademark applications, which remain pending.
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.
Complainant claims rights in the QUORA mark through its registration with multiple trademark agencies including the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,119,033, registered on March 27, 2012; EUIPO Reg. No. 1,048,976, registered on July 26, 2011). Complainant has provided evidence of the trademark registrations. Respondent does not dispute the validity of Complainant’s trademark. Where a complainant holds a nationally or regionally registered trademark or service mark, this prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.2. Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has established rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <coinquora.com> confusingly similar to its QUORA mark. Respondent defends that the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to the QUORA mark because the term “coin” is sufficient to differentiate the domain name from the mark. Additionally, Respondent asserts that it uses a different pronunciation of the term “Quora”, by utilizing a softer “k” sound and relatively silent “w” sound, whereas Complainant uses a powerful “k” and “w” sound. Complainant rebuts in its additional submission that Respondent does not use the disputed domain as a “unitary term” nor has it provided any evidence that the public would pronounce “QUORA” differently from “QUORA” in “COINQUORA.” Since launching his/her infringing website in October 2020, Respondent has displayed the disputed domain name as a compound phrase of two distinct words—COIN and QUORA—with the “QUORA” portion always emphasized. Respondent has continued to emphasize the QUORA portion of COINQUORA by displaying the terms in two different colors.
The Panel observes that adding a descriptive term along with the “.com” gTLD is insufficient in demonstrating rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) (“Respondent’s <antfinancial-investorrelations.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ANT FINANCIAL mark. It incorporates the mark entirely. It adds a hyphen, the descriptive terms “investor relations,” and the “.com” gTLD, but these additions are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety adding a descriptive term ‘coin’ and the “.com” gTLD. The Panel finds that the term ‘coin’ is descriptive especially in connection with Respondent’s ‘coin’ related services, i.e., cryptocurrency and blockchain media services offered at the disputed domain name’s resolving website. The Panel further notes that Respondent does not use the disputed domain as a “unitary term” nor has it provided any evidence that the public would pronounce “QUORA” differently from “QUORA” in “COINQUORA.” Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. In such circumstances, if the respondent fails to come forward with evidence establishing rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied this element (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1).
Complainant contends that it has not authorized or granted a license to Respondent to use Complainant’s QUORA mark in any way; and Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant also contends that given Complainant’s worldwide reputation and long-standing use of the QUORA mark in connection with an online, information sharing and learning, Internet platform, it is inconceivable that Respondent was not aware of Complainant’s platform before he/she registered the disputed domain name. Respondent is now using the disputed domain name to trade on the goodwill of Complainant’s QUORA mark, by offering a competing website where users can find information on the topics of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology, just as they can through Complainant’s platform. Intentionally selecting and using a name with the intent to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by trading on the reputation of Complainant’s QUORA mark cannot constitute a “bona fide” offering of goods and services.
Complainant further contends that by registering and using the disputed domain name that wholly incorporates Complainant’s fanciful and distinctive QUORA mark, which is prominently featured on Respondent’s infringing website, “Respondent attempts to pass himself off as Complainant. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).” Complainant provides screenshots of the comparison between its website and Respondent’s.
Given the considerations above, the Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case. As the onus thus shifts to Respondent, the Panel must now see if Respondent has rebutted the prima face case and shown that it has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
Respondent rebuts that Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent’s services are not the same as Complainant’s. Additionally, Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent avers that its use of the disputed domain name is bona fide. Before any notice of this dispute, Respondent used the disputed domain name in connection with its media operations intending to inform and educate readers regarding the latest news and updates in the crypto and blockchain industry. The goods and services in Complainant’s USPTO trademark registration are “computer services, namely, providing a webpage for users to ask and answer questions on topics of general interest, including automobiles, education, language, …” and nearly 120 additional topics. Meanwhile, Respondent’s services are identified as “providing on-line news in the field of finance; providing financial information in the field of cryptocurrency; providing a website featuring information in the field of cryptocurrency and blockchain industry; providing a website featuring educational information in the field of cryptocurrency and blockchain industry; providing on-line information, news and commentary in the field of cryptocurrency and blockchain industry. Complainant does not purport to be offering any comprehensive services related to cryptocurrency or blockchain media. Rather, Complainant provides a webpage for users to ask and answer questions,” where “registered users … participate in discussions, get feedback from their peers, form virtual communities, and engage in social networking.”
Respondent further rebuts that Respondent’s screenshot features an article discussing the timing of buying/selling cryptocurrency assets; an essential display of Respondent’s cryptocurrency and blockchain media service. Complainant’s screenshot features a post from one of Complainant’s registered users, asking the general community if it is the right time to buy or sell cryptocurrency. Complainant’s service is not focused around cryptocurrency; it is focused around an ask and answer mechanism with heavy community engagement. Any mention of cryptocurrency or blockchain technology is simply a byproduct of this service, as is any mention of space, or literature, or language, or any other of the infinite topics a user could ask about. Similarly, Respondent’s service is not centered around an ask and answer mechanism, it is centered around cryptocurrency and blockchain media and education. Respondent’s cryptocurrency and blockchain media service does not compete with Complainant’s ask and answer website service. Therefore, Respondent’s bona fide offering of its services establishes legitimate rights or interest in the disputed domain name.
Respondent further argues that Respondent has formed a free zone limited liability company (FZ-LLC) in the Ras Al Khaimah Economic Zone (RAKEZ) in the UAE. Respondent has also received various business licenses in both the RAKEZ and Dubai media zone. Respondent’s trademark application with the USPTO identifies the owner of the mark as Coinquora FZ-LLC. Respondent’s business email domain is “@coinquora.com.” Furthermore, Respondent is known by third parties as “Coinquora.” In particular, a third-party website acknowledges that Respondent provides sound and credible information from multiple sources to ensure that all news received by readers will be impartial and objective.” Additionally, various articles authored by Respondent have been featured on other cryptocurrency news sites, who encourage readers to “continue reading” or “proceed studying” on CoinQuora, and provide a hyperlink to the article at <coinquora.com>. Complainant makes no effort whatsoever to show Respondent is not commonly known as Coinquora. In light of Respondent’s overwhelming evidence that Respondent is operating a recognized and established business that is commonly known as CoinQuora, and thus Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent avers in its additional submission that i) it is not appropriate for panelists to make determinations where the determination would require resolution of a factual dispute by citing the case MeisterLabs GmbH v. Wang Xiaobing, Shenzen Edraw Software Co., Ltd., WIPO DIO2021-0008 (July 2, 2021) (“proceedings under the Policy are of a limited and restricted nature, do not involve oral hearings, discovery or cross examination, and hence are only applicable to clear cut cases, and it is not usually appropriate to decide disputed questions of fact or matters of truth or falsehood”); ii) this is not a “clear cut case” where the resolution would not benefit from discovery; iii) there exists a genuine dispute regarding whether Complainant’s services are sufficiently related to Respondent’s services as to Respondent’s use of the disputed domain being not bona fide; iv) Complainant does not sincerely offer blockchain or cryptocurrency media services; v) Complainant’s contention that they offer any service other than the underlying “webpage for users to ask and answer questions on a variety of topics,” is misguided; vi) the inquiry is not whether Complainant’s “spaces” are similar to Respondent’s services, but whether Complainant’s “ask and answer” webpage is similar to Respondent’s on-line cryptocurrency and blockchain news, information, and education services; and vii) considering Respondent’s pending trademark application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), a dispute involving such material questions of fact like the similarity of the parties’ services is better left to resolution in that forum.
The Panel notes that the reasons why the panel of the Respondent’s cited case WIPO DIO2021-0008 (July 2, 2021) found the pertinent case being not a “clear cut case” are: i) the term “mindmaster” does not seem to the panel to be so unusual as a name for mind mapping software as to rule out the possibility of independent derivation; ii) neither party has explained to the panel what (if any) other users there are of the term “mindmaster” so for example; iii) the panel has no knowledge of how (if at all) the domain name <mindmaster.com> is being used and by whom; iv) the complainant has not produced any evidence that the respondent’s software targets any other rights the complainant may own; v) further, as matter of visual observation the respondent’s website is significantly different from the complainant’s website; vi) the respondent has been offering its Mindmaster software for several years and it says it has millions of users of that software; and vii) the complainant has never so far as the panel is aware sought to claim any rights in the term “mindmaster” as opposed to “mindmeister.”
Unlike the WIPO DIO2021-0008 case, the Panel finds that it is appropriate for the Panel to make determinations because the disputed domain name incorporates, in its entirety, Complainant’s distinctive and fanciful trademark QUORA mark which is considered as having gained considerable reputation and valuable goodwill in the marketplace and online communities worldwide including the UAE where Respondent is domiciled well before the registration and use of the disputed domain name; the Panel has knowledge of how the disputed domain name is being used and by whom by the evidence both Complainant and Respondent have provided; Complainant has produced evidence that Respondent has resolved the disputed domain name to a website offers services which overlap with those of Complainant (the Panel will specifically delve into this issue below); as matter of visual observation, Respondent’s website is not significantly different from Complainant’s website; Respondent has displayed the disputed domain name as a compound phrase of two distinct words—COIN and QUORA—with the “QUORA” portion emphasized by displaying the terms COIN and QUORA in two different colors; and in October 2021, Complainant issued a cease and desist letter to Respondent, and instead of replying to the cease-and-desist letter, Respondent rushed to file its first trademark application for the disputed domain name in the UAE on October 13, 2021, various UAE business licenses, and subsequently filed a U.S. trademark application.
It is appropriate for the Panel to make determinations in terms of the applicable standard of proof in UDRP cases, i.e., the “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence.” See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.2.
The Panel finds that Respondent’s allegation that it is “commonly known” by the disputed domain name does not immunize the fact that Respondent adopted the disputed domain name incorporating Complainant’s distinctive and fanciful trademark QUORA 8 years after Complainant established its rights, and thus it is more likely than not to trade on Complainant’s goodwill. Respondent did not begin using the disputed domain until many years after Complainant began offering its services worldwide, developed its well-known online reputation, registered all of Complainant’s U.S. trademarks, and three of its UAE trademarks. The mere fact that a trademark has been applied for or obtained by a respondent is not an absolute bar to a complainant succeeding under the UDRP. Therefore, the Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s 2021 UAE business registrations and a handful of Internet references to Respondent do not establish rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
The Panel recognizes that Complainant’s QUORA mark was used and registered for services, i.e., an online, information sharing and learning, Internet platform services. The Panel is of the view that Respondent’s services offered at the disputed domain name’s resolving website such as providing on-line news in the field of finance; providing financial information in the field of cryptocurrency; providing a website featuring information in the field of cryptocurrency and blockchain industry; providing a website featuring educational information in the field of cryptocurrency and blockchain industry; providing on-line information, news and commentary in the field of cryptocurrency and blockchain industry are economically nexus to and competing with Complainant’s online information sharing and learning platform services. A brief search of the Google database reveals that at least as early as 2014, Complainant provided webpages with information on the topics of blockchain and cryptocurrency. The Panel notes that Respondent itself established a “CoinQuora” profile and “space” on the disputed domain name’s resolving platform, where it has used to answer cryptocurrency questions and advertise its disputed domain name which overlaps with the Complainant’s ‘questions and answer services.’ The Panel observes that social media commentators have reported that Complainant’s Quora is a reputable place to “gain and share knowledge and learn and understand the blockchain space,” and on the value advertising crypto projects on Quora can bring in light of Complainant’s “own community of cryptocurrencies and NFT, in which the opinion of the participants has a high degree of importance and trust.”
The Panel further finds that the services “computer services, namely, providing customized online web pages featuring user-defined information; computer services, namely, providing a webpage for users to ask and answer questions on a variety of topics of general interest, etc.” of Complainant’s USPTO trademark Reg. No. 4,119,033 registered on March 27, 2012 are broader than or economically nexus to Respondent’s services offered at the disputed domain name’s resolving website in that Complainant’s providing or sharing information services are for a variety of topics of general interest. Respondent argues that the “spaces” at Complainant’s website are not created by Complainant, but instead are created by users who wish to build an audience of other users interested in the specific topic. However, the Panel finds that Respondent’s argument is unwarranted in that Complainant has created and provided such a platform under Complainant’s mark.
The Panel notes that Respondent filed its first trademark application for the disputed domain name in the UAE on October 13, 2021. Complainant proceeded to oppose that application on November 11, 2021 and it remains pending. Respondent also filed for various UAE business licenses, and subsequently filed a U.S. trademark application, which Complainant has also opposed through an accepted letter of protest. The Panel finds that each of these actions and attempts were failed to legitimize Respondent after being put on notice that it was infringing Complainant’s trademark rights. Furthermore, the Panel observes that the existence of a respondent trademark does not automatically confer rights or legitimate interests on the respondent. For example, panels have generally declined to find respondent rights or legitimate interests in a domain name on the basis of a corresponding trademark registration where the overall circumstances demonstrate that such trademark was obtained primarily to circumvent the application of the UDRP or otherwise prevent the complainant’s exercise of its rights (even if only in a particular jurisdiction). See “WIPO Overview 3.0”, section 2.12.
The Panel also observes that under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), using a disputed domain name to offer services competing with Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Dan Stanley Saturne, FA 1785085 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use” where “Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name to offer for sale competing services.”). Complainant provides screenshots of the comparison between its website and Respondent’s while asserting that Respondent offers a website where users can find information on topics such as cryptocurrency and blockchain technology, just as they can through Complainant’s platform. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
As the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to rebut the prima facie case against it, it concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent diverts Internet users for commercial gain while creating a false sense of affiliation with Complainant. Additionally, Respondent causes initial interest confusion. Furthermore, Respondent failed to respond to Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the QUORA mark.
Respondent defends that he/she did not register and use the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent asserts that his/her services do not compete with those of Complainant and thus preclude a finding of bad faith registration and use. Additionally, Respondent argues that it did not register and use the disputed domain name in bad faith because it did not have knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark.
Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), using a disputed domain name to create a false impression of affiliation with a complainant may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Shafir, FA 196119 (Forum Nov. 10, 2003) (“As Respondent is using the domain name at issue in direct competition with Complainant, and giving the impression of being affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant, this circumstance qualifies as bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). The Panel recalls that Complainant’s QUORA mark is incorporated into the disputed domain name in its entirety, as well as Complainant’s screenshots of the comparison between its website and Respondent’s, which offers a website where users can find information on topics such as cryptocurrency and blockchain technology, just as they can through Complainant’s platform. Therefore, the Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Additionally, Respondent argues that it did not register and use the disputed domain name in bad faith because it did not have knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark. The Panel notes that Complainant has expended an overwhelming number of resources promoting its QUORA mark in connection with the Quora platform. In 2020, Complainant’s Quora platform was visited by over 300 million unique users a month around the globe. Complainant’s popularity and fame in the UAE alone (where Respondent is domiciled) can be gauged by the fact that from November 1, 2020 to October 31, 2021, Complainant’s Quora platform was visited by approximately 1.3 million UAE users. Complainant’s Quora platform is currently ranked the 83rd most visited website worldwide and 65th most visited website in the U.S. Unsolicited media highlighting Complainant, its popularity, and its growth, further demonstrates that Complainant and its QUORA mark enjoy significant recognition among the general public worldwide. The Panel finds that Complainant and its QUORA mark have gained considerable reputation and valuable goodwill in the marketplace and online communities worldwide due to Complainant’s long-standing use, extensive publicity, advertisement, and promotion under its QUORA mark.
As discussed above, the Panel references that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer services which are economically nexus to or competing with Complainant’s services thereby passing itself off as Complainant or at least misleading Internet users into believing that Respondent is associated with or sponsored by Complainant. Given the notoriety of Complainant’s QUORA mark and the manner of use of the disputed domain name, the Panel infers on the balance of probabilities that it is implausible that Respondent registered the disputed domain without knowledge of Complainant’s business and trademark rights at the time of registering the disputed domain name, which supports a finding of Respondent’s bad faith registration of 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 <coinquora.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist
Dated: July 22, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page