About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

InfoSpace, Inc. v. Aleksei Arhipov

Case No. D2011-1255

1. The Parties

The Complainant is InfoSpace, Inc., Bellevue, Washington, United States of America, represented by Stokes Lawrence, P.S., United States of America.

The Respondent is Aleksei Arhipov, Tallinn, Estonia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <allwebcrawler.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 22, 2011. On July 22, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to GoDaddy.com, Inc a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 24, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 28, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 17, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 18, 2011.

The Center appointed Adam Samuel as the sole panelist in this matter on August 24, 2011. 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a provider of search engine services and developer of Internet search tools and technologies. It is the legal owner of United States trademark registrations for WEBCRAWLER, number 2007916 registered on October 15, 1996 and assigned to it on January 18, 2002 and number 3497997 registered on September 9, 2008. The disputed domain name was registered on February 26, 2011.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

This section sets out the Complainant’s contentions with which the Panel may or may not agree.

The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the mark WEBCRAWLER in the Unites States and around the world. It first used the WEBCRAWLER mark at least as early as 1994. It also owns the domain names <webcrawler.com> and <mywebcrawler.com> which it has used in connection with its services since the late 1990s.

The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s well-known WEBCRAWLER mark and is substantially identical to and/or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s domain name. The addition of the “all” prefix does nothing to dispel a connection with the WEBCRAWLER trademark. On the contrary, the addition of the term “all” appears to suggest an enhanced or special service connected with the Complainant and only exacerbates the confusion between the Complainant and the Respondent.

The Complainant sent the Respondent a cease and desist letter on March 31, 2011 requesting transfer of the disputed domain name to which no response was received.

Long before the registration date of the disputed domain name, the Complainant had gained world-wide recognition as a globally renowned provider of search engine services and developer of Internet search tools and technologies. To the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent does not own any registered or common law marks containing the term “webcrawler”. Nor has the Respondent made any legitimate use of, or entered into any preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has never been known by or operated a business under the “webcrawler” name. It has no relationship with the Complainant and is not authorized to use the WEBCRAWLER mark or any variations of it.

The Respondent has selected the disputed domain name in order to generate business through “click through” advertising and diverting traffic to a commercial website by capitalizing on the public’s familiarity with the Complainant’s well-known WEBCRAWLER mark. The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract users to a parked website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion. The disputed domain name resolves to a website which, because of its targeted commercial links, appears, in part, intended to attract a similar target audience to the Complainant’s prospective customers. It is irrelevant whether the Respondent itself posted the parking page or whether he or the Registrar receive the click-through revenue generated. As the registrant, he bears the ultimate responsibility for the content displayed on the website corresponding to the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Under the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it 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.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant’s trademark WEBCRAWLER is a coined term which has no independent meaning. The disputed domain name consists of this trademark, the generic word “all” and the standard suffix “.com”. The addition of generic words, particularly to well-known trademarks, does generally not affect the confusing similarity between the domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks.

For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent is not called “Webcrawler” or anything similar and does not appear to trade under that or any related name. There is no evidence that the Complainant has ever authorized the Respondent to use its WEBCRAWLER trademark. The Respondent has never asserted any rights or legitimate interests in that name. For these reasons, on the basis of the available record, notably the absence of a Response, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant’s trademark, WEBCRAWLER, has no independent meaning. The trademark was first registered in 1996, fifteen years before the disputed domain name was registered, and assigned to the Complainant in 2002. The expression “allwebcrawler” has no meaning other than as a possible suggestion of something connected to the Complainant’s trademarks. Currently, the disputed domain name is not being actively used except as a parking site with links to various dating websites some of which Internet users might find distasteful.

In this Panel’s view, it is impossible, in the circumstances, at least without a Response to the Complaint, to identify a reason why the Respondent registered the disputed domain name other than to attract business or Internet users to his site who were looking for a site connected to the Complainant’s trademark or business.

The only reasonable explanation of what has happened is that the Respondent’s motive in registering and using the disputed domain name seems to be one or more of the following: to disrupt the Complainant’s relationship with its customers or potential customers, attempt to attract Internet users for potential gain or persuade the Complainant to buy the disputed domain name from him for an amount in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses. These each constitute evidence of registration and use in bad faith.

For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 name <allwebcrawler.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Adam Samuel
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 24, 2011

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/