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 eMadrid Reference 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


International Business Machines Corporation v. Quikr Jobs

Case No. D2020-2510

1. The Parties

The Complainant is International Business Machines Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented internally.

The Respondent is Quikr Jobs, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <mailibm.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with BigRock Solutions Pvt Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 28, 2020. On September 29, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 30, 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 October 9, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 29, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 3, 2020.

The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on November 5, 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 a world-renowned manufacturer of computer and computer related goods and services. With roots in the 1880s, it was incorporated in 1911 and since 1924 has used the IBM mark in association with goods and services concerned with information processing. The Complainant has sold computer hardware, software and accessories under the IBM mark since 1952.

The Complainant is the registered proprietor of trademark registrations for IBM in 170 countries around the world, including United States trademark number 640,606 IBM registered on June 29, 1957, and India trademark number 903,730 IBM stylized word mark registered on April 16, 2005.

The Domain Name was registered on August 26, 2020. It resolves to what appears to be a website identical to the Complainant’s India website at “www.ibm.com/in-en”. The Respondent has configured mail servers on the Domain Name. The Respondent did not respond to a cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant on August 27, 2020.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its IBM trademark (the “Mark”), that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of the Policy.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that:

(i) the 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 Domain Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has uncontested rights in the Mark, both by virtue of its numerous trademark registrations and as a result of the substantial goodwill and reputation acquired through its widespread use of the Mark over some 90 years. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, the Domain Name differs from the Mark only by the addition of the word “mail”. In the view of the Panel, this addition of this dictionary word does not detract from the confusing similarity between the Mark and the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent is not authorized by the Complainant to use the Domain Name. The Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but rather has used it to connect to the Complainant’s India website (or a copy of it) and to configure mail servers on the Domain Name. In light of the nature of the Domain Name, comprising simply the Mark and the word “mail”, the Panel cannot conceive of any legitimate use to which the Respondent could put the Domain Name.

The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint or to take any steps to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In this case, as noted above, the Panel considers that it is almost impossible to conceive of any good faith use to which the Domain Name could be put. The obvious inference is that the Respondent has used the Domain Name to resolve to a website comprising a copy of the Complainant’s own India website in order to deceive Internet users into believing that the Domain Name is operated or authorized by the Complainant, and to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Mark, presumably for commercial gain. In addition, the Panel considers that the configuring of email servers on the Domain Name gives rise to a significant risk of phishing or of other improper activities on the part of the Respondent. In the Panel’s view, this amounts to paradigm bad faith registration and use.

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 Name, <mailibm.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: November 17, 2020