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 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

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

ZipRecruiter Inc. v. JH Kang

Case No. DCO2020-0039

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is JH Kang, Republic of Korea.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <ziprecruiters.co> 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 July 24, 2020. On July 24, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 27, 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 July 31, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 20, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 21, 2020.

The Center appointed Charles Gielen as the sole panelist in this matter on September 1, 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 owns numerous trademark registrations for the trademark ZIPRECRUITER, such as:

- in the United States registered under number 3934310 on March 22, 2011, for services in class 42 and registered under number 5232840 on May 30, 2017, for goods in class 9 and services in classes 35 and 42;

- in New Zealand registered under number 1036562 on August 4, 2016, for goods in class 9 and services in classes 36, 41 and 42;

- in the European Union registered under number 015070873 on June 13, 2016, for goods in class 9 and services in classes 36, 41 and 42;

- in Canada registered under number TMA979480 on August 28, 2017, for goods in class 9 and services in classes 41 and 42;

- in Australia registered under number 1749916 on February 3, 2016. for goods in class 9 and services in classes 36, 41 and 42.

Furthermore, the Complainant holds among other the domain name <ziprecruiter.com> incorporating the trademark ZIPRECRUITER.

The disputed domain name <ziprecruiters.co> was created on February 26, 2020, and directs to a website containing pay-per-click links among other to websites of competitors of the Complainant in the online recruitment industry, among others.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant is a well-known American online recruitment company, attracting over 7 million active job seekers, over 40 million job alert email subscribers and over 10,000 new companies every month. Initially founded in 2010, the Complainant segments their business into two main categories, providing their services to individuals and to commercial entities. The Complainant currently has marketing operations in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, and job seekers and employers in multiple countries around the world use its services and products. The Complainant contends that it is recognized as one of the fastest growing technology companies in North America, ranking at 231 in the 2017 Deloitte Technology Fast 500. The Complainant was also featured in Forbes (2017), claiming its place amongst the top 100 world’s best cloud companies.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, since the disputed domain name reproduces the trademark ZIPRECRUITER in its entirety. Adding the letter “s” at the end of the term “ziprecruiter” in the disputed domain name does not distinguish it from the trademark. The country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.co” is a technical requirement and should be disregarded.

Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant gives the following reasons for this.

Firstly, the Respondent did not show that it owns any rights to the name “ziprecruiters” nor that is has any license from the Complainant to use its trademark. In addition, the Respondent is not known, nor has it ever been known under the name “ziprecruiters”.

Secondly, the Complainant submits there is no bona fide offering of goods or services attached to the disputed domain name; the Complainant argues on the contrary that the Respondent has deliberately used the distinctive trademark ZIPRECRUITER to create an impression of association with the Complainant, in order to earn revenue generated from redirections via the Respondent's pay-per-click website. Further, the Complainant argues that the Respondent is not making legitimate noncommercial use of the disputed domain name; the Respondent is generating monetary revenue through misleadingly diverting online users to the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

Finally, the Complainant argues that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name predates the registrations and use of the trademark of the Complainant and when searching for ZIPRECRUITER on the Internet, the first results concern the business of the Complainant. The Complainant implies that it is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, the disputed domain name is used in bad faith. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has listed the disputed domain name for sale for the price of USD 199. The Complainant argues that such a price is beyond what would reasonably be expected to be within the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs related to the disputed domain name.

In addition, the Complainant further submits that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct, preventing owners of trademarks from reflecting their mark in a corresponding domain names. This is evidenced by the fact the Respondent has been subject to several UDRP proceedings, all of which have ruled in favor of the Complainant as well as by its current domain name portfolio, consisting of 63 domain names, which comprises several third party trademarks. Finally, the Complainant submits that by the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect to a pay-per-click page showing links to competitors of the Complainant, the Respondent attempts to generate a commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

The Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant’s contentions are reasoned and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to the Complainant pursuant to the Policy.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant proves that it has rights in the trademark ZIPRECRUITER based on numerous trademark registrations. This trademark is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name, which causes the disputed domain name to be identical to the trademark at least in that respect. The fact that the term “ziprecruiter” in the disputed domain name is followed by the single letter “s” does not alter the conclusion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ZIPRECRUITER, since the word “ziprecruiter” remains clearly recognizable. Furthermore, the added ccTLD suffix “.co” does not change the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar, since the “.co” suffix is understood to be a technical requirement. In making the comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name, the ccTLD is disregarded. The Panel is of the opinion that applying these principles to this case, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark.

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

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Firstly, the Respondent did not show that it owns any rights to the name “ziprecruiters” nor that is has any license from the Complainant to use its trademark. Secondly, the Respondent did not argue that it is known, or that it has ever been known under the name “ziprecruiters”. Thirdly, there is no bona fide offering of goods or services attached to the disputed domain name by the Respondent. The Panel is convinced that the Respondent has deliberately used the trademark ZIPRECRUITER to create an impression of association with the Complainant, in order to earn revenue generated from redirections via the Respondent's pay-per-click page. Finally, the Complainant argues that the Respondent is not making legitimate noncommercial use of the disputed domain name; the Respondent is generating monetary revenue through misleadingly diverting online users to the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Finally, the Respondent has not come forward with evidence of any rights or legitimate interests and the Panel does not find any in the present record.

In view of the aforementioned, the Panel is of the opinion that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is met.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel is of the opinion that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. With respect to the registration, the Panel finds that it is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark that was first used in 2010. The trademark of the Complainant is well known in a number of countries and the fact that this trademark is incorporated in its entirety in the disputed domain name demonstrates that the Respondent must have been aware of the existence of the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, from the fact that the Respondent engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct as demonstrated by the Complainant, the Panel concludes that also in this case the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith. The Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent, by using the disputed domain name which is highly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ZIPRECRUITER, will attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. This is also caused by the fact that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect to a pay-per-click page showing links to competitors of the Complainant. The Panel therefore concludes that registration and use of the disputed domain name as described in this decision constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

The Panel therefore considers the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy to be met.

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 <ziprecruiters.co> be transferred to the Complainant.

Charles Gielen
Sole Panelist
Date: September 15, 2020

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/