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

Linkedin Corporation v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Scrap Linkedin

Case No. DIO2021-0019

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Linkedin Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented by The GigaLaw, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, United States.

The Respondent is Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Scrap Linkedin, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name, <scraplinkedin.io> (the “Domain Name”), is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 20, 2021. On August 20, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 20, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 26, 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 amendment to the Complaint on August 26, 2021.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .IO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for .IO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .IO 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 August 30, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 19, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 23, 2021.

The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on October 4, 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.

The invitation to the Complainant to file an amendment to the Complaint stemmed from the fact that when registering the Domain Name the underlying registrant, Scrap Linkedin, used the services of a privacy service, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf. The original Complaint named the privacy service as the Respondent, that being the name appearing in response to a WhoIs search against the Domain Name. The identity of the underlying registrant only came to light in the Registrar’s response to the Center’s registrar verification request. The amendment to the Complaint adds the name of Scrap Linkedin as a Respondent. For the purposes of this decision, the Panel treats the underlying registrant, Scrap Linkedin, as the Respondent.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a Delaware (United States) corporation, providing a business and employment-oriented online service that operates via websites and mobile apps. It is the registrant of many domain names including <linkedin.com>, which it registered on November 2, 2002 and which it uses in connection with its primary website. It is also the proprietor of numerous trade mark registrations covering its name, the earliest of which is United States Trademark Registration No. 3,074,241 LINKED (typed drawing) registered on March 28, 2006 (application filed on May 5, 2003) in class 35 for online business networking services.

The Domain Name was registered on June 29, 2019 and is connected to a webpage with a message reading: “This Connection is Not Private. This website may be impersonating “scraplinkedin.io” to steal your personal or financial information. You should go back to the previous page.”

The unchallenged evidence of the Complainant, supported by documentary evidence in the form of screenshots, demonstrates that prior to the filing of the Complaint the Respondent was using the Domain Name to connect to a website selling a service called “Scraplinkedin Sales Navigator Data Extractor,” for up to USD 105 per month, that purportedly offered the Complainant’s users the ability to install a Chrome Internet browser extension that would scrape the Complainant’s website for sales leads.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its LINKEDIN registered trade mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. General

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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 or is being used in bad faith.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name comprises the word “scrap”, followed by “linkedin” and the “.io” Top-Level-Domain identifier.

Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition 1, explains the test for identity or confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy and includes the following passage:

“While each case is judged on its own merits, 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.”

The Complainant’s LINKEDIN trade mark is readily recognizable in its entirety in the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out a non-exhaustive set of circumstances, any of which, if proved to the satisfaction of the Panel, shall demonstrate a registrant’s rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in dispute for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. These circumstances are:

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

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you are making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

Of the above, (iii) is clearly non-applicable, the Respondent’s website at the date of filing of the Complaint having been a commercial website. While (ii) appears on its face to be applicable given that the Respondent’s name according to the Registrar’s WhoIs record is “Scrap Linkedin”, that provision cannot apply where the name was adopted specifically to target the Complainant. The key issue is whether or not the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name constituted a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of (i).

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. In support of that contention the Complainant asserts that it has no connection with the Respondent and has granted the Respondent no permission to use its LINKEDIN trade mark. The Complainant further contends, with supporting evidence, that the Respondent’s activity complained of was in breach of the Complainant’s User Agreement, section 8.2 of which forbids users from inter alia developing, supporting or using software, devices, scripts, robots or any other means or processes to scrape the Complainant’s services or otherwise copy profiles and other data from the Complainant’s services.

The Complainant did not become aware of the fact that the Respondent was identified on the Registrar’s WhoIs record as “Scrap Linkedin” until after having been notified of the Registrar’s response to the Center’s registrar verification request. In its amendment to the Complaint, the Complainant asserts that “Scrap Linkedin” cannot be the Respondent’s real name and must have been selected solely to target the Complainant and its business.

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case under this element of the Policy; in other words, a case calling for an answer from the Respondent. The Respondent has not sought to answer the Complainant’s contentions. Its only apparent response has been to terminate the connection to the website in place at the date of the Complaint.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

D. Registered or Used in Bad Faith

Consistent with the finding under C above, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s contentions are well-founded. The Panel finds that the Respondent registered the Domain Name for the purpose for which it has been used, namely to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website by its use of the Complainant’s LINKEDIN trade mark with a view to deriving commercial gain. In so doing the Respondent has set out unfairly to disrupt the Complainant’s business.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraphs 4(a)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) 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 Domain Name, <scraplinkedin.io>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Date: October 11, 2021

1 Considering the similarities between the .IO Policy and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “UDRP”), the Panel also refers to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

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/