WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

CooperVision International Limited, CooperVision, Inc. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Vision Jobs

Case No. D2021-2840

1. The Parties

Complainants are CooperVision International Limited, United Kingdom (“UK”) and CooperVision, Inc., United States of America (“United States”) (collectively hereinafter “Complainants”), represented by Owen, Wickersham & Erickson, PC, United States.

Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States / Vision Jobs, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The Disputed Domain Name <coopervisionjobs.com> is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 27, 2021. On August 30, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On August 30, 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 Complainants on August 31, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainants filed an amendment to the Complaint on August 31, 2021.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 September 1, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 21, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 27, 2021.

The Center appointed Richard W. Page as the sole panelist in this matter on September 30, 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

Complainants own over 200 trademark registrations for their “COOPERVISION Marks” in the United States and worldwide, in connection with a wide range of goods and services provided by Complainants. The registrations include, without limitation, United States Registration No. 4,076,710 registered on December 27, 2011, and United States Registration No. 4,226,525 registered on October 16, 2012.

Complainants also own numerous “coopervision” domain names. Complainants’ website at “www.coopevision.com” includes a “Careers” section.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on August 3, 2021.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainants

Complainants contend that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to or confusingly similar with Complainants’ trade name “Coopervision”, the COOPERVISION Marks, and the “coopervision” domain names, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The distinctive name “Coopervision” in the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the COOPERVISION Marks and trade name. The element “jobs” in the Disputed Domain Name is descriptive and does not differentiate the Disputed Domain Name.

Complainants allege that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

Complainants further allege that there is no evidence of Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name, or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name, in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;

Complainants further allege that Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name.

Complainants further allege that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, which is being used for fraudulent solicitation and phishing emails while representing the sender as Complainants. Complainants further allege that impersonation of Complainants cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent.

Complainants assert that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

Complainants further assert that Respondent sends emails using the Disputed Domain Name to persons, primarily students or others looking for employment positions (the “scam targets”), who have posted their resumes on legitimate online sites such as LinkedIn. The emails purport to come from Coopervision employees, some fake, and some actual names of employees who have LinkedIn accounts or are identified in Complainants’ legitimate website. The emails inform the scam targets that they have been selected to interview for a remote position, most often as an “administrative assistant,” and attach fake “Welcome to CooperVision” documents purporting to describe Complainants and the alleged job position, which documents reproduce Complainants’ logos and address.

Complainants further assert that the Recipients are instructed to set up an account on Fleep. The scammers then use their own fake Fleep account associated with fake email addresses to “interview” the Recipients via the chat text function. There is no vocal or video interaction. In this chat interview, the scam targets are asked to confirm their addresses and are asked typical job interview type questions. A day or so later, the scam targets are sent a job offer via email through the Disputed Domain Name or through text messages, with attachments comprising false job offer letters and acceptance documents that reproduce Complainants’ logos and address. The scam targets are also told that they will be receiving a check for USD 100 or USD 150 to compensate for their time so far and/or for approximately USD 8,000 or USD 9,000 to buy equipment. They are asked for their bank information. False checks, purportedly from accounts at legitimate American banks, such as Bank of America, are sent to the scam target’s address, in some cases before the scam target has signed the job offer letters. The scam targets are instructed via email through the Disputed Domain Name or through text messages to deposit the checks in their bank account.

Complainants learned about this scam when several persons who received such communications contacted Complainants to report it. Complainants are not affiliated with any such recruiting efforts. The emails and associated activities are fraudulent attempts to obtain personal information and to facilitate theft of the scam targets’ funds.

In most cases reported to Complainants to date, the scam targets have recognized that the job offers were not legitimate, and they contacted Complainants before they lost any money. However, in one case when the scam target actually deposited the fake check, she was instructed to buy bitcoins with the funds (at that point, she recognized the scam and stopped communications with the scammers). In some cases, scam targets are given phone numbers to contact Coopervision, which phone numbers do not belong to Complainants. At least one scam target lost her legitimate job because she accepted the fraudulent new job offer from the scammers. The FBI has warned that this type of scam is being conducted using many fake domain names of legitimate companies.

By using the Disputed Doman Name in this fashion, Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to Respondent’s online locations by creating a likelihood of confusion with the COOPERVISION Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and endorsement of Respondent’s recruitment/hiring scam.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”

Even though Respondent has failed to file a Response or to contest Complainants’ assertions, the Panel will review the evidence proffered by Complainants to verify that the essential elements of the claims are met. See section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainants must prove each of the following:

i) that the Disputed Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the COOPERVISION Marks in which Complainants have rights; and,
ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and,
iii) that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Section 1.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that registration is prima facie evidence of Complainants having enforceable rights in the COOPERVISION Marks.

Complainants have asserted numerous registrations of the COOPERVISION Marks. Respondent has not contested these assertions.

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainants have enforceable trademark rights in the COOPERVISION Marks for purposes of this proceeding.

Complainants note that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to or confusingly similar with Complainants’ trade name “Coopervision”, the COOPERVISION Marks, and the “coopervision” domain names, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The distinctive name “Coopervision” in the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the COOPERVISION Marks and trade name. The element “jobs” in the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the COOPERVISION Marks.

Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 says that inclusion of the entire trademark in a domain name will be considered confusingly similar. Also section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 instructs that the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Also section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 instructs that generic Top-Level Domains “(gTLDs”) such as “.com” may be disregarded for purposes of assessing confusing similarity.

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainants have satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainants allege that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

Section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that once Complainants make a prima facie case in respect of the lack of rights or legitimate interests of Respondent, Respondent carries the burden of production demonstrating it has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Where Respondent fails to do so, Complainants are deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy allows three nonexclusive methods for the Panel to conclude that Respondent has rights or a legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name:

(i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the COOPERVISION Marks.

Complainants allege that there is no evidence of Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name, or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name, in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Complainants further allege that the fraudulent use of the Disputed Domain Name to scam unsuspecting Internet users precludes any bona fide offering of goods or services.

Complainants further allege that Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name.

Complainants further allege that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, which is being used for fraudulent solicitation and phishing activities while representing the sender as Complainants. Complainants further allege that impersonation of Complainants cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent.

The Panel finds that Complainants have made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. See section 2.13 of WIPO Overview 3.0.

Respondent has not contested these allegations. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainants have established the elements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Complainants assert that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith in violation of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets forth four nonexclusive criteria for Complainants to show bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name:

(i) circumstances indicating that you [Respondent] have registered or you have acquired the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain Name registration to Complainants who are the owners of the COOPERVISION Marks or to a competitor of Complainants, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Disputed Domain Name; or

(ii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the COOPERVISION Marks from reflecting the marks in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the Disputed Domain Name, you [Respondent] have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the COOPERVISION Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product.

Complainants have described in detail the scam being perpetrated by Respondent on Internet Users. After review of these activities, the Panel finds that Complainants have met the requirements of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

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 <coopervisionjobs.com> be transferred to Complainants.

Richard W. Page
Sole Panelist
Date: October 13, 2021