Taboola.com Ltd. v. Tara Limited / Tara International Enterprises Limited
Claim Number: FA2306002047339
Complainant is Taboola.com Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by Taboola.com Ltd., Israel. Respondent is Tara Limited / Tara International Enterprises Limited (“Respondent”), VG.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <taboolanews.app>, registered with Porkbun 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 June 2, 2023; Forum received payment on June 2, 2023.
On June 6, 2023, Porkbun LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <taboolanews.app> domain name is registered with Porkbun LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Porkbun LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Porkbun 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 June 7, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 27, 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@taboolanews.app. Also on June 7, 2023, 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 July 5, 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., is a content discovery platform.
Complainant has rights in the TABOOLA NEWS mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <taboolanews.app> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the TABOOLA NEWS mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety with the mere addition of the “.app” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to complete the domain name.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <taboolanews.app>. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark. Respondent also does not use the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to redirect users to a webpage that features gambling related material.
Respondent registered and uses the <taboolanews.app> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to confuse users as to the source or affiliation of the at-issue domain name. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to redirect users to a site featuring gambling related material. Respondent also had constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TABOOLA NEWS mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in the TABOOLA NEWS 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 NEWS trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to redirect internet users to a website that offers gambling related content.
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 identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant shows that it registered the TABOOLA NEWS mark with the USPTO. Complainant’s registration for TABOOLA NEWS with at least one recognized trademark registrar is conclusive evidence of its rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (stating, “There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and its vested interests in a mark.”); see also, Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Wang Liqun, FA 1625332 (Forum July 17, 2015) (finding, “Registration of a mark with a governmental authority (or, in this case, multiple governmental authorities) is sufficient to establish rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i)”).
Respondent’s <taboolanews.app> domain name contains Complainant’s entire TABOOLA NEWS trademark less its space, with all followed by the “.app” top-level domain name. The differences between Complainant’s TABOOLA NEWS trademark and Respondent’s at-issue domain name fail to distinguish the domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <taboolanews.app> domain name is confusingly similar or identical to Complainant’s TABOOLA NEWS trademark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy).
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 <taboolanews.app> 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 Jun. 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 registrant of <taboolanews.app> as “Tara Limited / Tara International Enterprises Limited” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by the <taboolanews.app> 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).
Respondent used the at-issue domain name to redirect to a website featuring gambling content. Respondent’s use of the <taboolanews.app> in this manner constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Dipaolo v. Genero, FA 203168 (Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“Diversion to [adult-oriented material] is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below without being exhaustive, there is evidence from which the Panel may conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
First, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to redirect internet traffic to a gambling website presumptively for commercial gain. Such use of the domain name is disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith regarding the at-issue domain name per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See PopSockets LLC v. san mao, FA 1740903 (Forum Aug. 27, 2017) (finding disruption of a complainant’s business which was not directly commercial competitive behavior was nonetheless sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also, G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see also H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Nobuyoshi Tanaka / Personal, FA1312001534740 (Forum Jan. 31, 2014) (“Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is acting in bad faith because Respondent is using the <harley-davidsonsales.com> domain name to tarnish Complainant’s HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark, as the Panel also finds that the content displayed on the resolving website constitutes adult-oriented content.”).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TABOOLA NEWS mark when it registered <taboolanews.app> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s TABOOLA NEWS trademark and from Respondent’s incorporation of Complainant’s entire TABOOLA NEWS mark into the at-issue confusingly similar domain name. Respondent’s registration and use of <taboolanews.app> with knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights in TABOOLA NEWS further demonstrates Respondent’s 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, 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).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <taboolanews.app> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: July 5, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page