WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Indeed Inc. v. Wu Yu

Case No. DQA2019-0002

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Indeed Inc. of Austin, Texas, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Pirkey Barber PLLC, United States.

The Respondent is Wu Yu of Guangnxi, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <indeed.qa> is registered with AEserver FZE (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 20, 2019. On February 21, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 27, 2019, 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 Qatar Domains Registry Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Qatar Domains Registry Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Qatar Domains Registry Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 5, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 25, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 26, 2019.

The Center appointed Adam Tayloras the sole panelist in this matter on April 10, 2019. 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

Since 2004 the Complainant has operated a job site at “www.indeed.com” which attracts approximately 250 million unique visitors per month from over 60 countries. From 2010, the Complainant’s website has included a sub-domain at <qa.indeed.com>, focussing on employment opportunities in Qatar.

The Complainant owns a number of registered trade marks for INDEED including United States trademark no. 3,141,242, filed December 3, 2004, registered September 12, 2006, in classes 35 and 42.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 17, 2018.

As of November 8, 2018, the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page with employment-related pay-per-click (“PPC”) links such as “Job Indeed”, “Indeed Employment Search” and “Indeed Job Posting”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

A summary of the Complainant’s contentions is as follows.

The Complainant operates the world’s largest job site.

The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous trade mark, which it wholly incorporates.

The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no bona fide offering of goods or services as the Respondent’s sole purpose was to take advantage of the Complainant’s well-known mark by diverting users to the Respondent’s parking page. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Nor is the Respondent making noncommercial use of the disputed domain name.

The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s existence and rights when registering the disputed domain name.

The Respondent is intentionally using the Complainant’s trade mark in the disputed domain name to attract visitors to the parking page in violation of paragraph 5(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The Respondent has been found to have registered and used other domain names in bad faith in a previous UDRP case Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v. Wu Yu, Aidan / Registration Private, WIPO Case No. D2018-1458.

The Respondent is also associated with many other domain names which are misspellings of well-known brands.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that:

- the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights;

- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

- the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established rights in the mark INDEED by virtue of its registered trade marks as well as unregistered trade mark rights deriving from the extensive and worldwide use of that name.

Disregarding the suffix, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trade mark.

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 5(a) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

As explained in section 2.1 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”) ¹, the consensus view is that, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If not, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.

Here, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorised the Respondent to use its trade mark.

As to paragraph 5(c)(i) of the Policy, the disputed domain name has been used for a parking page with links to employment services which are directly related to those supplied by the Complainant. Such use of the disputed domain name could not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests. See section 2.9 of WIPO Overview 3.0 , which states that use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalise on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users.

Nor is there any evidence that paragraphs 5(c)(ii) or (iii) of the Policy apply in the circumstances of this case.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interests and there is no rebuttal by the Respondent.

The Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant has therefore established the second element of paragraph 5(a) of the Policy.

C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith

In the Panel’s view, paragraph 5(b)(iv) of the Policy applies. By using the disputed domain name, comprising the Complainant’s trade mark, in connection with a parking page with links to services relating to the Complainant’s industry, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark.

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 5(a) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 5(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <indeed.qa> be transferred to the Complainant.

Adam Taylor
Sole Panelist
Date: April 15, 2019

¹Although WIPO Overview 3.0 is directed to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), given the similarity between the UDRP and the Policy, it is appropriate to have regard to these principles except to the extent that the Policy diverges from the UDRP.