Taboola.com Ltd. v. Mohammad Arafat / Businessman
Claim Number: FA2212002025082
Complainant is Taboola.com Ltd. (“Complainant”), Israel. Respondent is Mohammad Arafat / Businessman (“Respondent”), Qatar.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <taboola.team>, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 22, 2022; Forum received payment on December 22, 2022.
On December 23, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <taboola.team> 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 December 29, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 18, 2023 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@taboola.team. Also on December 29, 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 January 24, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Taboola.com Ltd., operates a content discovery platform.
Complainant has rights in the TABOOLA mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <taboola.team> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s TABOOLA mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety while adding the “.team” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <taboola.team> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its TABOOLA 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 noncommercial or fair use, but instead the domain name creates an impression of affiliation with Complainant.
Respondent registered and uses the <taboola.team> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the confusingly similar nature of the disputed domain name to create a false impression of affiliation with Complainant. Additionally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TABOOLA mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the TABOOLA. Mark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the TABOOLA trademark.
Respondent fails to address 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 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant shows that it has a USPTO trademark registration for its TABOOLA mark. Complainant’s national registration of its TABOOLA mark is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in a mark under 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.”).
Respondent’s <taboola.team> domain name contains Complainant’s TABOOLA trademark followed by the “.team” top-level. The differences between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish the <taboola.team> domain name from Complainant’s TABOOLA trademark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <taboola.team> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. See Medline Industries, Inc. v. Jinkon / 胡雪, FA 1925299 (Forum Jan. 25, 2021) (finding the <medline.plus> domain name confusingly similar to the MEDLINE mark because it simply adds the “.plus” gTLD); see also Marquette Golf Club v. Al Perkins, FA 1738263 (Forum July 27, 2017) (“When a respondent’s domain name incorporates a mark in its entirety and merely adds a generic top-level domain (gTLD), “.com”, then the Panel may find that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark.”).
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 at-issue 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. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark into any domain name).
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Mohammad Arafat” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <taboola.team> domain name or by TABOOLA. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <taboola.team> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 2011001919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) (“Here, the WHOIS information lists “er nong wu” as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <appbittrex.com> domain name where the WHOIS information listed Respondent as “Operi Manaha,” and nothing else in the record suggested Respondent was authorized to use the BITTREX mark.).
Complainant indicates by way of an exhibit in its Annex that browsing to <taboola.team> returns an error message. The error message states that “This site can’t be reached.” Respondent’s passive holding of <taboola.team> constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v. Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018) (“Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <taboola.team> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, circumstances are present which allow 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.
First and as mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interest, Respondent holds its confusingly similar <taboola.team> domain name passively. Doing so indicates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of such domain name under the Policy. See Regions Bank v. Darla atkins, FA 1786409 (Forum June 20, 2018) (“Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because Respondent uses the domain name to host an inactive website.”).
Moreover, Respondent registered <taboola.team> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the TABOOLA mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s incorporation of Complainant’s entire unique trademark into the at-issue domain name. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further shows that Respondent registered and used <taboola.team> 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"); see also Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Fox International Channels (US), Inc. v. Daniel Pizlo / HS, FA1412001596020 (Forum Jan. 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent must have had actual knowledge of the complainant and its rights in the FOX LIFE mark, where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to feature one of the complainant’s videos on its website, indicating that the respondent had acted in bad faith under 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 <taboola.team> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: January 25, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page