WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

ZipRecruiter Inc. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC, DomainsByProxy.com / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico

Case No. D2021-1863

1. The Parties

The Complainant is ZipRecruiter Inc., United States of America, represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC, DomainsByProxy.com, United States of America / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <ziprecvruiter.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 14, 2021. On June 15, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 16, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 22, 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 on June 24, 2021.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 28, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 18, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 3, 2021.

The Center appointed Benjamin Fontaine as the sole panelist in this matter on August 10, 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant, ZipRecruiter Inc., is a well-known American online recruitment company founded in 2010 and one of the fastest growing technology companies.

The Complainant offers its services under several domain names, including <ziprecruiter.com>.

The Complainant is the owner, in particular of the European Union trademark ZIPRECRUITER no. 15070873 in classes 9, 36, 41 and 42, registered on June 13, 2016.

The disputed domain name was registered on May 22, 2020. In the course of this proceeding the Registrar disclosed the identity of the Respondent.

The disputed domain name has been used to automatically redirect Internet users attempting to access the disputed domain name to a series of rotating third-party websites, including pay-per-click (“PPC”) links in different sectors not necessarily linked to recruitment.

The Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent on June 11, 2020 to which the latter did not reply.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The arguments of the Complainant can be summarized as follows:

On the first element of the Policy, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <ziprecvruiter.com> is “identical and highly similar to the prior rights of the complainant”. It highlights in particular that the word “ZIPRECRUITER” is inherently distinctive and not used in the course of trade other than by the Complainant. It also mentions that the letter “v” between the “c” and the “r” in the disputed domain name was intentionally added. Indeed, the “v” is adjacent on the keyboard to the “c”. To that extent, it is a typical typo misspelling that Internet users are likely to make.

On the second element of the Policy, the Complainant indicates that the Respondent does not appear to own any rights over the sign “ZIPRECRUITER” (the result of a trademark clearance search was even attached), is not known under this name, and has not been authorized in any manner to use the trademark ZIPRECRUITER.

On the third element of the Policy, the Complainant highlights a number of elements: first, the trademark “ZIPRECRUITER” has accrued substantial goodwill and recognition, as it is a key player in online recruitment. Actually, any Google search on “ZIPRECRUITER” solely displays results linked to the Complainant. Second, the Respondent intentionally added the letter “v” into the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that such a misspelling is indicative of typosquatting. Third, the Respondent did not answer to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter dated from June 11, 2020.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth the following three requirements, which have to be met for this Panel to order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant:

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 Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforesaid three elements is present so as to have the disputed domain name transferred to it, according to paragraph 4(i) of the Policy.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established rights over the trademark ZIPRECRUITER.

This trademark is reproduced nearly identically and is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name.

The addition of the letter “v” between the letters “c” and “r” does not influence this finding. Indeed, as stated in WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7, “in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing”.

For the reasons above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant.

The Complainant has therefore satisfied the first requirement of the Policy, under article 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

In that sense, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case against the Respondent, who has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not affiliated with the Complainant nor has it been licensed or otherwise permitted to use any of the Complainant’s trademarks or to register domain names incorporating the Complainant’s trademark ZIPRECRUITER.

Accordingly, and absent specific allegations by the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In order to prevail under the third element of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, a complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists a number of circumstances which, without limitation, are deemed to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. These are:

(i) circumstances indicating that [a respondent has] registered or acquired a disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name to the complainant or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [the respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or

(ii) [the respondent has] registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the complainant from reflecting the complainant’s trademark or service mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) the respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the disputed domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location.

Indisputably, the disputed domain name was specifically designed and registered to target the Complainant. It reproduces the trademark ZIPRECRUITER, with a slight modification barely visible, namely the addition of a letter “v” between the letters “c” and “r”. On a “Qwerty” keyboard, the letter “v” is right next to the letter “c”, which reveals the intention of the Respondent to take advantage of possible typo errors of Internet users. This is typosquatting.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names was registered in bad faith. Furthermore, the Panel also finds that the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith, for the following reasons:

First, the disputed domain name resolves to a series of rotating third-party websites including PPC links which is evidence of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. In any event, even if one considers such use to be passive holding, the Panel cannot foresee any use in good faith of the disputed domain name, which targets the Complainant and its valuable trademark. The connection with the Complainant’s trademark is too obvious. Moreover, the behavior of the Respondent confirms this presumption. Indeed, this individual provided incorrect contact details, and chose not to answer to the cease-and-desist letter nor to intervene in this proceeding.

Second, the Respondent has listed the disputed domain name for sale on a domain aftermarket website for an unreasonable price. The sale of a confusingly similar domain name may be another evidence of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.1.

Third, and finally, it is apparent that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering domain names that target the rights of the Complainant. See WIPO Case No. D2020-3323, ZipRecruiter Inc. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, and WIPO Case No. D2020-0307, ZipRecruiter Inc. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico. Also, the Respondent has been subject of about 300 UDRP proceedings, which is substantial.

Accordingly, a finding of registration and use in bad faith is clearly in order, and the third criteria element set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is also satisfied.

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, <ziprecvruiter.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Benjamin Fontaine
Sole Panelist
Date: August 20, 2021