Westmore · UDRP DecisionSupportziprecruiter.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <supportziprecruiter.com> after finding all three UDRP elements satisfied. The domain incorporated the ZIPRECRUITER mark in its entirety with the term “support,” carried a risk of implied affiliation, and redirected users to rotating third-party websites. Bad faith was supported by targeting of the Complainant’s pre-existing rights, the redirects, an unanswered cease-and-desist letter, a USD 899 sale listing, and prior UDRP proceedings identifying Carolina Rodrigues as a serial cybersquatter.
The timeline behind supportziprecruiter.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
This decision illustrates the cumulative force of an affiliation-suggestive domain composition and monetized or disruptive redirection evidence. The addition of “support” did not distinguish the domain from ZIPRECRUITER; instead, the Panel found that the domain’s nature carried a risk of implied affiliation. The redirects, sale listing, unanswered cease-and-desist letter, and cited prior UDRP history collectively reinforced the bad-faith conclusion.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION ZipRecruiter Inc. v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Carolina Rodrigues Case No. D2021-2184 1. The Parties The Complainant is ZipRecruiter Inc., United States of America (the “United States”), represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom. The Respondent is Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Carolina Rodrigues, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <supportziprecruiter.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 7, 2021. On July 8, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, 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 the Complainant on July 14, 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 Amended Complaint on July 16, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the Amended 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 23, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 12, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 13, 2021. The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on August 23, 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 The Complainant is a well-known American online recruitment company, attracting over 7 million active job seekers and over 10,000 new companies every month. It was founded in 2010 and has today marketing operations in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks for the word mark ZIPRECRUITER, including the United States Trademark Registration No. 3934310, which was registered on March 22, 2011 in international class 42. The disputed domain name was registered on April 28, 2021, and by the date of the filing of the complaint, it redirected to a rotating series of third-party websites. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends in essence: - that the Complainant’s trademark ZIPRECRUITER is well-known in the United States; - that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark ZIPRECRUITER because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, whereas the descriptive term “support” does nothing to obviate confusion; - that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, because there is no affiliation or other relationship whatsoever between the Parties; - that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect online users to an ever-changing series of third party websites, which includes redirection to surveys, forced search engine searches, pay-per-click (“PPC”) pages, websites of third-party commercial services and others; and - that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith to intentionally target the Complainant’s brand; - that the Respondent failed to respond to a cease and desist letter send by the Complainant on June 2, 2021; - that the Respondent has listed the disputed domain name for sale for the price of USD 899 which is far beyond the out-of-pocket expenses related thereto; - that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct as cybersquatter; - that the Respondent therefore registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent has not submitted a response. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements: (i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has shown that it holds, among others, the United States Trademark Registration No. 3934310, for the word mark ZIPRECRUITER. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ZIPRECRUITER, because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, whereas the addition of the word “support” and of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant contends, credibly, that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the disputed domain name, and that there is no relationship whatsoever between the Parties. In particular, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect online users to a rotating series of third party websites, which includes redirection to surveys, forced search engine searches, PPC pages, and websites of third-party commercial services, does not demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has put forward a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Furthermore, the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 2.5.1). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant has credibly shown that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s pre-existing trademark rights in order to intentionally target the Complainant’s brand. The Complainant has further shown that the Respondent failed to respond to a cease and desist letter, listed the disputed domain name for sale for a price which is far beyond the presumable out-of-pocket expenses related thereto, and used the disputed domain name to automatically redirect users to third party websites unrelated to the Complainant. Under these circumstances, the Panel therefore finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Additionally, the Respondent has been subject to several UDRP proceedings where it was recognized that the Respondent is a serial cybersquatter (see Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico , WIPO Case No. D2021-0761 and ZipRecruiter Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico , WIPO Case No. D2020-0570 ). This further supports the Panel’s conclusion of Respondent’s bad faith. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under 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, <supportziprecruiter.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. Andrea Mondini Sole Panelist Date: September 6, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around supportziprecruiter.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.