ServiceTitan, Inc. v. John Kim
Claim Number: FA2203001990406
Complainant is ServiceTitan, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Steven M. Levy, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is John Kim ("Respondent"), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <servicetitan.org>, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 31, 2022; the Forum received payment on March 31, 2022.
On March 31, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <servicetitan.org> 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 31, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 20, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@servicetitan.org. Also on March 31, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 26, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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
Complainant is a developer and marketer of software products and services targeted at HVAC, plumbing, electrical, and other field service businesses. Complainant uses the SERVICETITAN mark in connection with these products and services. Complainant owns various trademark registrations in the United States and other jurisdictions for SERVICETITAN in standard character form; the registrations reflect dates of first use as early as 2011.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <servicetitan.org> in April 2021. The domain name is being used for a web page composed of pay-per-click links to third-party websites, some of which offer services related to those offered by Complainant. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant notes that the telephone number in the domain name registration record corresponds to that of the CEO of a competitor of Complainant, and suggests that Respondent may be using a false name and may be either a competitor of Complainant or someone impersonating a competitor. (The Panel notes that the physical address and email address in that record also appear to refer to the CEO identified by Complainant.) Finally, Complainant states that in response to an inquiry, Respondent indicated through a domain name broker that he was seeking a price of $150,000 for the domain name.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <servicetitan.org> is identical or confusingly similar to its SERVICETITAN mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <servicetitan.org> corresponds to Complainant's registered SERVICETITAN trademark, with the ".org" top-level domain appended thereto. The addition of a top-level domain is normally irrelevant for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., Mattel, Inc. v. Domain c/o VO, FA 1289791 (Forum Dec. 15, 2009) (finding <hotwheels.org> identical to HOT WHEELS). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and its sole apparent purpose has been to display pay-per-click links, including links to competitors of Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Houzz Inc. v. Gabriella Garlo, FA 1933594 (Forum Mar. 29, 2021) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." Under paragraph 4(b)(iii), bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered a domain name corresponding to Complainant's registered mark. The domain name is being used to display pay-per-click links, including links to competitors of Complainant. Respondent has offered no explanation for his selection of the domain name and has declined to participate in this proceeding. Based upon the available evidence, including the current use of the domain name and the domain name broker's response to Complainant's inquiry, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent's intent in registering the domain name was to create and profit from confusion with Complainant's mark, and that Respondent is maintaining the registration for that purpose. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <servicetitan.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: April 26, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page