WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Guild Education, Inc. v. 钱梦聃 (Qianmengdan, Qian Meng Dan) and 巫蓉蓉 (Wurongrong)

Case No. D2021-3069

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Guild Education, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Neugeboren O’Dowd PC, United States.

The Respondents are 钱梦聃 (Qianmengdan or Qian Meng Dan) and 巫蓉蓉 (Wurongrong), China.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <guildducation.com>, <guildeduation.com>, <guildeducatin.com>, <guildeducatio.com>, <guildeucation.com>, and <wwwguildeducation.com> are registered with DNSPod, Inc. The disputed domain name <guildeduction.com> is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd.

DNSPod, Inc. and Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. are referred to below individually and collectively as the “Registrar”.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 17, 2021. On September 18, 2021 and September 21, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar requests for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On September 18, 2021 and September 26, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center verification responses disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 29, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint in English on October 1, 2021.

On September 29, 2021, the Center transmitted an email communication to the Parties in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding. On October 1, 2021, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondents did not comment on the language of the proceeding.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondents in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 6, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 26, 2021. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on October 28, 2021.

The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on November 24, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

In accordance with the general powers of the Panel under paragraph 10 of the Rules, the Panel issued Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1 on December 13, 2021. In the Order the Panel noted that the Complainant claimed unregistered or common law rights in the GUILD and GUILD EDUCATION marks and also noted the Respondents’ pattern of registering multiple domain names containing the terms “guild” and “education” or the misspelling of those terms. The Panel invited the Complainant to submit by December 19, 2021, further supporting evidence to demonstrate that it was entitled to unregistered or common law rights in the GUILD and GUILD EDUCATION marks and it also invited the Respondents to comment by December 24, 2021 on any such supplemental filing. The due date for the decision was extended to December 31, 2021.

In response to Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1, the Complainant made a supplemental filing in English on December 19, 2021. The Respondent did not comment on the Complainant’s supplemental filing.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is an educational technology company that partners with employers to connect working adults with strategic education and upskilling opportunities. The Complainant registered the domain name <guildeducation.com> on June 29, 2015 that it uses in connection with a website where it provides information about itself and its services. On June 5, 2020, the Complainant applied for United States trademark application number 88949378 for GUILD, specifying educational services, software as a service, and other services in classes 41 and 42, with a claim of first in commerce in at least March 2017. That application is currently pending. In June 2021, the Complainant also raised a USD 150 million Series E funding round, which brought its business market valuation to USD 3.75 billion.

The Respondents are named in the Registrar’s WhoIs database as two individuals, both resident in China.

The disputed domain names were registered on the following dates by the following registrants:

The disputed domain names resolve to nearly identical landing pages displaying Pay-Per-Click (“PPC”) links for education services including college degrees and skill training programs or, in the case of one disputed domain name (<guildeduction.com>), learning courses.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The asserted trademark is GUILD EDUCATION. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to that trademark as they are all slight typographical misspellings of the mark.

The Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainant owns common law rights in the GUILD and GUILD EDUCATION trademarks, which it has been using in commerce for more than six years. Since 2015, the Complainant has maintained a business website associated with the domain name <guildeducation.com>. All the disputed domain names were created well after the Complainant began using its mark and registered its domain name. The Respondents are using the disputed domain names for PPC sites with links to companies promoting their educational services. The Respondents have no relevant trademark rights and without the authority of the Complainant have used the disputed domain names identical to the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondents’ use of the Complainant’s GUILD EDUCATION trademark in the disputed domain names with single-letter misspellings may be understood by Internet users as impersonating the trademark owner.

The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Each of the disputed domain names resolves to a PPC site set up to refer users to education-related services that all are squarely within the services that the Complainant offers under its trademark GUILD EDUCATION. The Respondents have plainly registered the disputed domain names to trick Internet users into believing that they have landed at the Complainant’s website, and induce the user to click on one of the education-related links, thereby generating income for the Respondents. Typosquatting constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use.

B. Respondents

The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1 Procedural Issues

A. Consolidation: Multiple Domain Name Registrants

The Complaint initiates disputes in relation to two nominally different domain name registrants. The registrant of the disputed domain name <guildeducatio.com> is named as 巫蓉蓉 (wurongrong) while 钱梦聃 (variously transcribed as “qianmengdan” or “Qian Meng Dan”) is named as the registrant of the other six disputed domain names. The Complainant alleges that the domain name registrants are the same person or entity or are under common control, and requests consolidation of the disputes pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request.

Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. However, the Panel does not consider that paragraph 3(c) was intended to enable a single person or entity to put a complainant to the unnecessary time, expense and effort of initiating multiple proceedings against technically different domain name registrants, particularly when each registration raises the same issues. In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2.

As regards common control, the Panel notes that six disputed domain names have the same registrant or contact person (钱梦聃). Although the seventh disputed domain name (<guildeducatio.com>) has a different registrant, its contact street address is the same as that of one of the other six disputed domain names (<guildeduction.com>). The disputed domain names were all registered within a period of several months, and six of them (including the one with the different registrant) exhibit a coordinated pattern of typographical errors in the same pair of words. All seven disputed domain names resolve to nearly identical PPC landing pages that, in most cases, display the same PPC links. In these circumstances, the Panel is persuaded that the disputed domain name registrants are under common control or indeed the same person.

As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party.

Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the two nominally different disputed domain name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding.

B. Language of the Proceeding

Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that “unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.” The Registrar confirmed that the Registration Agreements for the disputed domain names are all in Chinese.

The Complainant requests that the language of the proceeding be English. Its main arguments are that the Registrar’s Terms of Service are in English; and the PPC landing pages to which the disputed domain names resolve are also in English.

Paragraph 10(b) and (c) of the Rules require the Panel to ensure that the Parties are treated with equality, that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case and that the administrative proceeding take place with due expedition. Prior UDRP panels have decided that the choice of language of the proceeding should not create an undue burden for the parties (See, for example, Solvay S.A. v. Hyun-Jun Shin, WIPO Case No. D2006-0593; Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. Hui’erpu (HK) electrical appliance co. ltd., WIPO Case No. D2008-0293).

In this proceeding, the Complaint, amended Complaint and the Complainant’s supplemental filing were filed in English. The disputed domain names contain English words (one of which is misspelt in most cases) and all resolve to landing pages displaying PPC links in English, from which it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent is able to understand that language. In any case, despite the Center having sent the Parties, in English and Chinese, notification of the Complaint and an email regarding the language of the proceeding, the Respondent has not commented on the issue of language or expressed any interest in otherwise participating in this proceeding. Therefore, the Panel considers that requiring the Complainant to translate the Complaint into Chinese would create an undue burden and delay, whereas accepting the Complainant’s submissions in English will not cause unfairness to either Party.

Having considered all the circumstances above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of this proceeding is English. The Panel would have accepted a Response in Chinese, but none was filed.

6.2 Substantive Issues

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a complainant must prove each of the following elements with respect to each disputed domain name:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The burden of proof of all three elements is on the Complainant. Accordingly, the Respondent’s default does not by itself mean that the Complainant is deemed to have prevailed. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.3.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complaint states that the asserted trademark is GUILD EDUCATION on the basis of common law or unregistered rights. The Complaint also claims common law rights in the mark GUILD but, given the findings below, it is unnecessary to consider that claim.

The Panel takes note that the asserted mark is composed of two dictionary words, namely “guild”, which is an organization type, and “education”, which is descriptive of the Complainant’s services.

The evidence shows that the Complainant operates a tuition reimbursement and education platform. It partners with large businesses in the provision of employee education benefits. These businesses include Disney, Chipotle, Walmart, Taco Bell, and Lowe’s. The Complainant has been offering its services as “Guild Education”, including from its website associated with the domain name <guildeducation.com>, since 2015. It advertises through Internet-based marketing channels, engages in direct email marketing and publishes a marketing blog on its website. The evidence shows that the Complainant has received widespread media attention in the United States as “Guild Education” since as early as 2018 but particularly after its market capitalization reached USD 1 billion in late 2019, from media outlets including the Associated Press, The Washington Post, Forbes, CBS News, CNN, CNBC, and Yahoo! Finance.

Based on this evidence, the Panel considers that there is a prima facie case that the words “Guild Education” have become a distinctive identifier that consumers associate with the Complainant’s services in the United States such that the Complainant holds common law rights in the GUILD EDUCATION mark in that jurisdiction. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.3.

Turning to the comparison between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s asserted mark, the Panel notes that six disputed domain names incorporate the GUILD EDUCATION mark, omitting only a single letter from the word “education” in each case. These are all obvious typographical errors in the spelling of the mark. The other disputed domain name wholly incorporates the GUILD EDUCATION mark, adding the prefix “www” without a stop. This is a common typographical error when typing a URL in a browser. All the disputed domain names are examples of “typosquatting”. See WIPO Overview, section 1.9. In each case, the mark, or sufficient parts of the mark, remains clearly recognizable within the disputed domain names.

The only additional element in each disputed domain name is the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com”. As a mere technical requirement of domain name registration, this element may be disregarded in the comparison between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s mark. See WIPO Overview, section 1.11.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out the following circumstances which, without limitation, if found by the Panel, shall demonstrate that the respondent has rights to, or legitimate interests in, a disputed domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

(i) before any notice to [the respondent] of the dispute, [the respondent’s] use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the [disputed] domain name or a name corresponding to the [disputed] domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) [the respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) [has] been commonly known by the [disputed] domain name, even if [the respondent has] acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) [the respondent is] making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the [disputed] domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

As regards the first circumstance set out above, the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to the GUILD EDUCATION mark and resolve to landing pages displaying PPC links to sites offering educational services. The Respondent has received no authorization from the Complainant to use its mark. The Panel considers that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the disputed domain names are not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the terms of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.

As regards the second circumstance, the Respondent’s name is listed in the Registrar’s WhoIs database as “钱梦聃 (qianmengdan or Qian Meng Dan)” and “巫蓉蓉 (wurongrong)”, neither of which has any relation to any of the disputed domain names. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by any of the disputed domain names within the terms of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.

As regards the third circumstance, each of the disputed domain names resolves to a webpage displaying PPC links that operate either for the commercial gain of the Respondent, if he is paid to direct traffic to the linked websites, or the operators of the linked websites, or both. That is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the terms of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.

In view of the above circumstances, the Panel considers that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondent did not rebut that prima facie case because he did not respond to the Complaint.

Therefore, based on the record of this proceeding, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainant has satisfied the second element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that certain circumstances, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The fourth circumstance is as follows:

“(iv) by using the [disputed] domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the 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 [the respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location.”

The disputed domain names were registered in 2021. The evidence indicates that the Complainant had already acquired common law trademark rights in GUILD EDUCATION by that time. The disputed domain name <wwwguildeducation.com> wholly incorporates the GUILD EDUCATION trademark in combination with a common typographical error in a URL. The operative element of each of the other six disputed domain names is an obvious misspelling of the GUILD EDUCATION trademark. The disputed domain names have no apparent meaning other than as an approximation of the Complainant’s domain name, which contains the mark. This pattern of typosquatting demonstrates an awareness of the GUILD EDUCATION mark and an intention to target it in bad faith.

The disputed domain names are used to attract Internet users who misspell the Complainant’s domain name in an Internet browser by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s GUILD EDUCATION trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the webpages to which the disputed domain names resolve. The PPC links displayed on these webpages capitalize on the trademark value of GUILD EDUCATION. This use is intentional and for the commercial gain of the Respondent, or the operators of the linked websites, or both. In each of these scenarios, the facts fall within the circumstance described in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See Express Scripts, Inc. v. Windgather Investments Ltd. / Mr. Cartwright, WIPO Case No. D2007-0267.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant has satisfied the third element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names, <guildducation.com>, <guildeduation.com>, <guildeducatin.com>, <guildeducatio.com>, <guildeucation.com>, <wwwguildeducation.com>, and <guildeduction.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Matthew Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: December 31, 2021