WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

TaskRabbit, Inc. v. Ihsan Bayram

Case No. DNL2021-0061

1. The Parties

Complainant is TaskRabbit, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Novagraaf Nederland B.V., Netherlands.

Respondent is Ihsan Bayram, Netherlands.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <taskrabbit.nl> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with SIDN through Cronon AG.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 4, 2021. On November 5, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to SIDN a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 8, 2021, SIDN 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 Complainant on November 8, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by SIDN, and requesting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 12, 2021.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the Amended Complaint satisfies the formal requirements of the Dispute Resolution Regulations for .nl Domain Names (the “Regulations”).

In accordance with the Regulations, articles 5.1 and 16.4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 15, 2021. In accordance with the Regulations, article 7.1, the due date for Response was December 5, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 8, 2021.

The Center appointed Dinant T. L. Oosterbaan as the panelist in this matter on December 14, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panelist has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required to ensure compliance with the Regulations, article 9.2.

4. Factual Background

Complainant is a task management worldwide network that connects consumers with skilled self-employed contractors willing and able to provide tasks to handle everyday home to-do’s, such as Ikea furniture assembly and handyman work. Complainant was acquired by Ikea in late 2017.

According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant has obtained multiple registrations for the trademark TASKRABBIT, including:

- United States trademark TASKRABBIT number 4003673, filing date June 3, 2010, and registration date July 26, 2011, indicating first use as of April 8, 2010,
- European Union trademark TASKRABBIT filing number 010652436, filing date February 16, 2012, and registration date September 14, 2012.

SIDN informed the Center that the Domain Name was first registered on September 19, 2011, and that the date of the current registration by Respondent is November 6, 2020.

At the time of the Decision the Domain Name resolved to a website with the following message: “Spoed Ikea Montage ? Neem Contact Op” (translated from Dutch: “Urgent Ikea Assembly ? Contact Us”).

Previously the Domain Name resolved to a pay-per-click parking site, including links to various tasks and errands services. It also mentioned that the Domain Name may be for sale by its owner.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant submits that the Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s TASKRABBIT trademark since the Domain Name incorporates the trademark. According to Complainant it is well established that the country code Top-Level Domain “.nl” may be disregarded.

Complainant submits that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant argues that Respondent does not own any rights to the trademark and is not a licensee of Complainant, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use its trademark.

According to Complainant the use of the Domain Name to resolve to pay-per-click sites, including links to sites of competitors of Complainant, is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent is also not known to the public by the Domain Name.

According to Complainant, the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant asserts that the Domain Name was first registered more than a year after Complainant filed its application for its United States trademark and after Complainant’s first use of such mark. There is no plausible explanation why Respondent registered the Domain Name other than that Respondent intended to mislead the public and trade off the goodwill and reputation associated with Complainant.

Complainant submits that Respondent asked a price of EUR 40.000 for the Domain Name, which is clearly in excess of the registration costs.

According to Complainant the use of the Domain Name is also in bad faith as the website under the Domain Name uses the TASKRABBIT trademark and the Ikea name in order to falsely try and make people think that Respondent is associated with Complainant and Ikea to assemble Ikea furniture, one of the most requested jobs to be performed through the services of Complainant. In addition, the use of the distinctive name TASKRABBIT is misleading and in bad faith as it is not an obvious name for the Domain Name of Respondent.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Based on article 2.1 of the Regulations, a claim to transfer a domain name must meet three cumulative conditions:

a. the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or trade name protected under Dutch law in which the complainant has rights, or other name mentioned in article 2.1(a) under II of the Regulations; and
b. the respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name; and
c. the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

As Respondent has not filed a Response, the Panel shall rule based on the Complaint. In accordance with article 10.3 of the Regulations, the Complaint shall in that event be granted, unless the Panel considers it to be without basis in law or in fact.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established that it is the owner of multiple trademarks, including the European Union Trademark TASKRABBIT.

The Domain Name incorporates the TASKRABBIT mark in its entirety. Previous panels under the Regulations have found that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the domain name incorporates the distinctive part or entirety of such trademark. See also section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).¹

The country code Top-Level Domain “.nl” may be disregarded for purposes of article 2.1(a) of the Regulations, see Roompot Recreatie Beheer B.V. v. Edoco LTD, WIPO Case No. DNL2008-0008.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s TASKRABBIT trademark under the first element of article 2.1 of the Regulations.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

As stated in WIPO Overview 3.0, “while the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of ‘proving a negative’, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element”.

In the Panel’s opinion, Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

According to the undisputed submission and evidence provided by Complainant, the Domain Name at the time of the Decision resolved to a website with the above-mentioned message (as translated): “Urgent Ikea Assembly ? Contact Us”. Complainant submits that its major business as a partner of Ikea is to act as an intermediary between consumers and self-employed contractors, in particular with respect to the assembly of Ikea furniture by the contractors. It is thus confusing that Respondent uses the trademark of Complainant on the website under the Domain Name in order to advertise services which are identical or very similar to the services of Complainant. The Panel does not consider such use a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.

The same reasoning applies to the prior use of the Domain Name when it resolved to a pay-per-click parking site, including links to various tasks and errands services.

In addition, there is no evidence before the Panel that Respondent has acquired any relevant trademark or service mark rights; nor of any business relationship between Complainant and Respondent. There is also no indication that Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name.

No Response to the Complaint was filed and Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie case.

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name for purposes of the second element of article 2.1 of the Regulations.

C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

SIDN informed the Center that Respondent became the registrant of the Domain Name in November 2020, thus many years after Complainant acquired relevant trademark rights. It is well established that the date Respondent as the current registrant acquired the Domain Name is used to assess bad faith registration (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.9).

Noting the status of the TASKRABBIT marks and the overall circumstances of this case, the Panel finds it highly likely that Respondent knew (and in any event it should have known) Complainant’s TASKRABBIT mark at the time Respondent became the current registrant, especially in view of the fact that the Domain Name at that time was used as a pay-per-click parking site, including links to “Task Rabbit Jobs” and to various tasks and errands services similar to the services provided by Complainant.

As already mentioned under 6.B, the Panel also notes that the Domain Name at the time of the Decision resolved to a website offering urgent Ikea furniture assembly services, which match the services of Complainant. The Panel concludes that Respondent has attempted or is attempting to attract Internet users, for commercial gain, to the website of Respondent through the likelihood of confusion which may arise with the trademark of Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website of Respondent, which constitutes registration and use in bad faith.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with articles 1 and 14 of the Regulations, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <taskrabbit.nl> be transferred to Complainant.

Dinant T.L. Oosterbaan
Panelist
Date: December 28, 2021

¹ In view of the fact that the Regulations are substantially similar to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), it is well established that both cases decided under the Regulations and cases decided under the UDRP, and therefore WIPO Overview 3.0, may be relevant to the determination of this proceeding (see, e.g., Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Beuk Horeca B.V., WIPO Case No. DNL2008-0050).