Yahoo Assets LLC v. Sumitra Devi / Sumitra
Claim Number: FA2211002020640
Complainant is Yahoo Assets LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Joseph C. Daniels-Salamanca of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Sumitra Devi / Sumitra (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <techcrunchhub.com>, 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 Forum electronically on November 16, 2022; Forum received payment on November 16, 2022.
On November 17, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <techcrunchhub.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 November 18, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 8, 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@techcrunchhub.com. Also on November 18, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 13, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 <techcrunchhub.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TECHCRUNCH mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <techcrunchhub.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <techcrunchhub.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant holds a registration for the TECHCRUNCH mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,295,864, registered on February 26, 2013).
Respondent registered the <techcrunchhub.com> domain name on July 22, 2021, and uses it to compete with Complainant and to conduct a phishing scheme.
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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the TECHCRUNCH mark based on registration with the USPTO. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”)
Respondent’s <techcrunchhub.com> domain name uses Complainant’s TECHCRUNCH mark and merely adds the word “hub” and the “.com” gTLD. These changes do not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Empowered Medical Solutions, Inc. d/b/a QRS-Direct and QRS Magnovit AG v. NULL NULL / QUANTRON RESONANCE SYSTEMS / JIM ANDERSON / HTR / unknown HTR / HTR, FA 1784937 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Adding or removing descriptive terms or a gTLD is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <techcrunchhub.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TECHCRUNCH 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 asserts that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <techcrunchhub.com> domain name, as it is not commonly known by the domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use the TECHCRUNCH mark. The WHOIS information of record names “Sumitra Devi / Sumitra.” The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same).
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the <techcrunchhub.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses the disputed domain name to compete with Complainant. Diverting Internet users to a competing website is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Invesco Ltd. v. Premanshu Rana, FA 1733167 (Forum July 10, 2017) (“Use of a domain name to divert Internet users to a competing website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”) Complainant provides screenshots of the website at <techcrunchhub.com> showing competing technology content. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Complainant contends that Respondent’s lack of rights is further demonstrated by its use of the disputed domain name to phish for users’ personal information, and provides supporting evidence. The Panel finds that this use is also not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in a domain name with which it conducted a phishing scheme to procure “Internet users’ personal information”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the <techcrunchhub.com> domain name in bad faith by using to compete with Complainant and perpetrate phishing schemes. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“Respondent uses the <klabzuba-oilgas.com> domain to engage in phishing, which means Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”).
Complainant argues Respondent registered the <techcrunchhub.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TECHCRUNCH mark based on the Respondent’s use of the domain name to resolve to a competing website, which prominently features Complainant’s TECHCRUNCH mark on every page. The Panel agrees and finds further 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 <techcrunchhub.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: December 14, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page