WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center


ZipRecruiter Inc. v. Lynda Drysdale

Case No. D2020-0361

1. The Parties

The Complainant is ZipRecruiter Inc., United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom (“U.K.”).

The Respondent is Lynda Drysdale, Canada.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <ziprecruiter.tech>, <ziprecrulter.store>, <ziprecrulter.top>, <zlprecrulter.online>, <zlprecrulter.site>, <zlprecrulter.store> (the “Domain Names”) are registered with Nicenic International Group Co., Limited (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 14, 2020. On February 14, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On February 15, 2020, the Registrar 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 21, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 12, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 13, 2020.

The Center appointed Manuel Moreno-Torres as the sole panelist in this matter on March 20, 2020. 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 an online recruitment company based in the United States. Founded in 2010, the Complainant serves both individuals and companies, and it conducts its marketing operations in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K.

The Complainant owns the following trademark registrations



Registration Number

Date of Registration



United States








9, 36, 41, 42





9, 41, 42

The Complainant has also registered a number of domain names, including <ziprecruiter.com>, which it uses to provide and fulfill its job recruitment business. Moreover, the Complainant has registered domain names under country-code Top-Level Domains (“ccTLDs”) which enables users to access its services, using their local Top-Level Domain (“TLD”). As such, <ziprecruiter.fr>, <ziprecruiter.co>, and <ziprecruiter.co.nz>.

The Complainant has also established a social media presence and uses its ZIPRECRUITER trademark to promote its services under this name.

The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter sent to the Respondent on January 21, 2020. No answer was received by the Respondent.

The Domain Names are currently inactive with the exception of <zlprecrulter.online> which directs to Complainant’s web site “www.ziprecruiter.co.uk”.

Previous UDRP panel decisions have recognized the value of the ZIPRECRUITER trademark. See ZipRecruiter, Inc. v. Domain Admin, Hush Whois Protection Ltd., On behalf of ziprecuiter.com OWNER, c/o whoisproxy.com / Amir Cohen, Hush Privacy Protection Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2019-2273.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant has provided evidence to be the owner of the registered trademark ZIPRECRUITER in different jurisdictions. The trademark is recognizable within the limits of the second level of the Domain Names and, by applying the requirement of identical or confusing similarity of the test under the Policy, it is apparent that <ziprecruiter.tech> is identical to the aforementioned trademark. Further, the rest of the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark due to the Respondent’s misspellings of the Complainant’s trademark in the Domain Names. The Complainant looks at the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”, section 1.9) to affirm that for the purposes of the first element it is a general consensus that a domain name which consists of a common, obvious or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by Panels to be confusingly similar.

With regard to the second element, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has not registered any trademarks for the term “ziprecruiter”, and there is no evidence that the Respondent holds any unregistered rights to such term. Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has not received any license or authorization from the Complainant to use a domain name which features the ZIPRECRUITER trademark.

The Complainant submits that the Domain Names, with the exception of <ziprecrulter.store> all redirected to the Complainant’s website “www.ziprecruiter.co.uk”, prior to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter sent to the Respondent on January 21, 2020. The Domain Name <ziprecrulter.store> did not resolve to any active content. Following the Complainant’s cease and desist letter, the Respondent removed the redirections to the Complainant’s website for all but one of the Domain Names; <zlprecrulter.online>.

The Complainant submits that there is no bona fide offering of goods or services attached to the Domain Names either because the site is down or because it redirects to the Complainant’s site. The latter cannot be considered a genuine offer of goods or services in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known, nor has she ever been known as “ziprecruiter”. Thus, by using the ZIPRECRUITER trademark the Respondent’s sole intention is to mislead Internet users into thinking that the Domain Names are associated with the Complainant.

Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Names in bad faith. The Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trademark has accrued substantial goodwill and recognition. For such provides evidence that a Google search of the “ziprecruiter” term lists the Complainant’s brand and services as the first result. Accordingly, the Complainant affirms that the registration of the Domain Names was done in connection with the Complainant’s brand and in bad faith.

Furthermore, the Complainant supports a finding of bad faith use of the Respondent. Indeed, redirecting a domain name to the complainant’s website establishes bad faith insofar as the respondent retains control over the redirection thus creating a real or implied ongoing threat to the complainant.

Moreover, the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct in registering the ZIPRECRUITER trademark in multiple domain names.

The Respondent is likely seeking to profit from an unauthorized association with the Complainant’s mark through attracting hits and possibly obtaining revenue from diverted traffic.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the complainant must satisfy the panel that:

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

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

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

There are no exceptional circumstances within paragraph 5(e) of the Rules to prevent this Panel from determining the dispute based upon the Complaint, notwithstanding the failure of the Respondent to lodge a response. Under paragraph 14(a) of the Rules in the event of such a “default” the Panel is still required “to proceed with a decision on the complaint”, whilst under paragraph 14(b) it “shall draw such inferences there from as it considers appropriate”. This dispute resolution procedure is accepted by domain name registrants as a condition of registration.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has provided evidence of its registered trademarks rights in ZIPRECRUITER. The Panel also finds that the Complainant’s trademark is clearly recognizable in the Domain Names. The Complainant’s trademark is exactly reproduced in <ziprecruiter.tech> and the rest of the Domain Names are obvious misspellings of this mark. Accordingly, the test is satisfied for the purposes of the Policy. See section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. “A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element”.

It is well established that gTLDs are typically irrelevant to the consideration of identity or confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name.

Therefore, the first requirement is met under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The case file allows the Panel to conclude that the Respondent does not have any registered or unregistered trademark in the “ziprecruiter” term and that the Respondent did not receive any license or authorization to use the ZIPRECRUITER trademark in a corresponding domain name. The Panel also accepts that the Respondent is not commonly known by the term “ziprecruiter”. Further, from the overall evidence produced by the Complainant, the Panel cannot find any plausible right or legitimate interest in the Domain Names.

Moreover, the Panel finds that the composition of the Domain Names, even with the minor misspellings of five of them, is such that they effectively impersonate or suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

According to WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.: “[W]here a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.” However, the Respondent did not file a Response to the Complaint. Thus, the Respondent did not come forward with such appropriate allegation or evidence before the Panel.

The Complainant has therefore demonstrated that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names to the satisfaction of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii).

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Previous UDRP panels have considered the ZIPRECRUITER trademark to be well known. See ZipRecruiter Inc. v. Lynda Drysdale, WIPO Case No. D2019-3068 where the learned panel stated: “The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER mark is well-known in its industry”.

Moreover, it is admitted that typosquatting is an obvious evidence of bad faith. See Moneyweek Limited v. he jianyi, WIPO Case No. D2015-1700.

Further, following the registration of the Domain Names they were redirected to the Complainant’s website except for <ziprecrulter.store> which was inactive.

Under these circumstances the Panel finds that the Respondent knew or should have known about the Complainant and its activities at the time of the registration of the Domain Names.

All of the Domain Names, except for <zlprecrulter.online>, are currently inactive (previously only <ziprecrulter.store> was inactive). The Panel notes that the “passive holding” doctrine may be applied where appropriate. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. In such a situation it is appropriate to look at the totally of the circumstances of the case. Here, the facts alleged in the Complaint, the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s mark, the lack of the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests, and the lack of response from the Respondent to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter support a finding of bad faith registration and use.

With regard to the redirection of <zlprecrulter.online> to the Complainant’s site (and the previous redirection of all the Domain Names except <ziprecrulter.store>), the Panel looks at GameStop, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Protection Domain, WIPO Case No. D2018-1243 where the panel accurately describes this scenario as follows: “ The use of the Domain Name to redirect the traffic to the Complainant’s own website also implies bad faith as there is a risk that the Respondent may at any time cause Internet traffic to redirect to a website that is not that of, or associated with, the Complainant (See MySpace, Inc. v. Mari Gomez, WIPO Case No. D2007-1231) and as it may increase customer confusion that the Domain Name is somehow licensed or controlled by the Complainant (see PayPal Inc. v. Jon Shanks, WIPO Case No. D2014-0888.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Domain Names were registered and are 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 Domain Names, <ziprecruiter.tech>, <ziprecrulter.store>, <ziprecrulter.top>, <zlprecrulter.online>, <zlprecrulter.site>, <zlprecrulter.store> be transferred to the Complainant.

Manuel Moreno-Torres
Sole Panelist
Date: April 3, 2020