WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

ZipRecruiter Inc. v. Domain Admin / Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD

Case No. D2020-0376

1. The Parties

Complainant is ZipRecruiter Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.

Respondent is Domain Admin / Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, Panama.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <zipectruiter.com>, <zipprecrfuiter.com>, <ziprdcruiter.com>, <ziprecruioter.com>, <ziprecryter.com>, <ziprecuiting.com> and <ziprecurlter.com> are registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited dba Register Matrix (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 17, 2020. On February 18, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 18, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 2, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 22, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 27, 2020.

The Center appointed Stephanie G. Hartung as the sole panelist in this matter on April 3, 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

Complainant is a company organized under the laws of the United States that is active in the online recruitment business.

Complainant has provided evidence that it is the owner of various registered trademarks relating to its company name and brand “ZipRecruiter”, inter alia, the following:

- Word mark ZIPRECRUITER, United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), registration number: 3, 934, 310, registration date: March 22, 2011, status: active;

- Word mark ZIPRECRUITER, European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”), registration number: 015070873, registration date: June 13, 2016, status: active.

Moreover, Complainant has demonstrated to own the domain name <ziprecruiter.com>, which resolves to Complainant’s official website at “www.ziprecruiter.com” where Complainant promotes and offers its online recruitment services.

Respondent, according to the WhoIs information for the disputed domain names and the Registrar’s verification response of February 18, 2020, is a company legally domiciled in Panama that is active in the domain name administration industry, and which registered the disputed domain names between July 8, 2019 and December 12, 2019. Complainant has evidenced that, at some point before the filing of the Complaint, all seven disputed domain names resolved to typical pay-per-click (“PPC”) websites with hyperlinks redirecting to active third parties’ websites, including some of Complainant’s direct competitors in the online recruitment industry; also, the disputed domain names were at least temporarily offered through the domain name trading platform Sedo for online sale.

Complainant requests that the disputed domain names be transferred to Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends to be a well-known United States online recruitment company, attracting over seven million active jobseekers, over 40 million job alert email subscribers and over 10,000 new companies every month.

Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trademark as they consist of intentional misspellings of said trademark which is still recognizable therein. Moreover, Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names since (1) Respondent has not received any license from Complainant to use its ZIPRECRUITER trademark as a domain name or in any other way, and Respondent does not seem to hold any registered or unregistered rights in the term “ziprecruiter” whatsoever; (2) there is no plausible reason for the registration and use of the disputed domain names, other than to take advantage of the goodwill and valuable reputation attached to Complainant’s ZIPRECUITER brand; (3) by hosting PPC links on the disputed domain names which comprise of terms in relation to Complainant’s services, Respondent is generating monetary revenue through misleadingly diverting online users. Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith since (1) Complainant’s earliest ZIPRECRUITER trademark registration predates the creation of the disputed domain names by at least eight years; (2) the disputed domain names consist of several intentional misspellings of Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trademark; (3) Respondent not only used the disputed domain names to redirect to PPC pages, but also offered them for online sale; and (4) Respondent has been involved in several UDRP proceedings in the past, a vast majority of which has ruled in favor of the concerned complainants, thus Respondent is engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant carries the burden of proving:

(i) that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and

(iii) that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

Respondent’s default in the case at hand does not automatically result in a decision in favor of Complainant, however, paragraph 5(f) of the Rules provides that if Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute solely based upon the Complaint. Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel concludes that all seven disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the ZIPRECRUITER trademark in which Complainant has rights.

The disputed domain names all incorporate the ZIPRECRUITER trademark more or less entirely, however in misspelled/typo-squatted versions caused by omitting and/or adding one or more letters. Numerous UDRP panels have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to a registered trademark (see e.g., PepsiCo, Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL (a/k/a P.E.P.S.I.) and EMS Computer Industry (a/k/a EMS), WIPO Case No. D2003-0696). Moreover, it has been held in many UDRP decisions and has become a consensus view among UDRP panels (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.9), that a domain name which consists of a common, obvious or intentional misspelling of the complainant’s trademark (i.e., a typo-squatting) is still considered to be confusingly similar to the relevant trademark for purposes of the first element under the UDRP. Accordingly, the fact that the disputed domain names obviously include intentional misspellings/typo-squattings of Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trademark is consistent with such finding of confusing similarity, especially given the fact that Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trademark is at least recognizable within each of the disputed domain names.

Therefore, Complainant has established the first element under the Policy as set forth by paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel is further convinced on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed contentions that Respondent has not made use of the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor has Respondent been commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor can it be found that Respondent has made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof without intent for commercial gain.

Respondent has not been authorized to use Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trademark, either as a domain name or in any other way. Also, there is no reason to believe that Respondent’s name somehow corresponds with the disputed domain names and Respondent does not appear to have any trademark rights associated with the term “ziprecruiter” or any variation thereof on its own. Finally, Respondent obviously has neither used the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use purpose. On the contrary, at least at some point before the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to typical PPC websites showing a variety of hyperlinks to third parties’ websites, amongst which were direct competitors of Complainant in the online recruitment industry, for the obvious purpose of generating PPC revenues. UDRP panels have agreed that using a domain name to host a PPC website does not present a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s trademark or otherwise mislead Internet users (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.9).

Accordingly, Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Now, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating to the contrary (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1). Given that Respondent has defaulted, Respondent has not met that burden.

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has also satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) and, thus, the second element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finally holds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used by Respondent in bad faith.

Resolving all of the seven disputed domain names which are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trademark to typical PPC websites showing a variety of hyperlinks to active third parties’ websites, which include even some of Complainant’s direct competitors in the online recruitment industry, for the obvious purpose of generating PPC revenues, is a clear indication that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its own websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of those websites. Such circumstances are evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Moreover, the fact that Respondent created and registered a multitude of at least seven disputed domain names all of which include Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trademark in a misspelled/typo-squatted version also fulfills the requirements of a pattern of bad faith conduct within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.2).

In connection with this finding, it finally carries weight in the eyes of the Panel that Respondent obviously provided false or incomplete contact information in the WhoIs register for the disputed domain names since, according to the email correspondence between the Center and the postal courier DHL, the Written Notice on the Notification of Complaint dated March 2, 2020, could not be delivered. This fact at least throws a light on Respondent’s behavior, which supports the Panel’s bad faith finding.

Therefore, Complainant has also satisfied the third element under the Policy as set forth by paragraph 4(a)(iii).

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 <zipectruiter.com>, <zipprecrfuiter.com>, <ziprdcruiter.com>, <ziprecruioter.com>, <ziprecryter.com>, <ziprecuiting.com> and <ziprecurlter.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Stephanie G. Hartung
Sole Panelist
Date: April 7, 2020