Sslideshare.com

The timeline behind sslideshare.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Scribd, Inc. v. Wiki Bio Case No. D2024-1411 1. The Parties The Complainant is Scribd, Inc., United States of America (the “United States” o r “US”), represented by IPLA, United States. The Respondent is Wiki Bio, Ind ia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <sslideshare.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 2, 2024. On April 3, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On April 3, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (GoDaddy.com, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 5, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amended Complaint on April 9, 2024. The Center verif ied that the Complaint amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 11, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 1, 2024. The Respondent sent an informal email communication to the Center on April 12, 2024. Upon request by the Complainant, the Center suspended the case on April 19, 2024. On May 20, 2024, the proceeding was reinstituted and the new due date f or Response was June 1, 2024. The Center sent a Commencement of Panel Appointment email to the Parties on June 5, 2024. page 2 The Center appointed Nicholas Weston as the sole panelist in this matter on June 11, 2024. The Panel f inds 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 incorporated in the United States and operates a business that digitally enables users to share video, audio, documents, images, and presentations over the Internet. The Complainant holds 14 registrations worldwide for the trademark SLIDESHARE, including United States Trademark Registration No. 4212895 f or the mark SLIDESHARE in classes 9, 35, and 42, registered on September 25, 2012. The Complainant owns the domain name <slideshare.net>, which was registered on April 4, 2006, f rom where its main website operates. The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on December 29, 2022. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website displaying the SLID ESHARE trademark and of f ers a “Slideshare Downloader” tool that purports to allow users to “easily and quickly download any PowerPoint presentation f rom Slideshare with a f ew clicks”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the Disputed Domain Name. Notably, the Complainant cites its trademark registrations internationally f or the mark SLIDESHARE and variations of it, as prima f acie evidence of ownership. The Complainant submits that its rights in that the mark SLIDESHARE mark predate the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name. It submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark, because the Disputed Domain Name is comprised of the SLIDESHARE trademark and that the additional letter “s” is not suf f icient to avoid the conf using similarity. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because the “the disputed domain offers a tool to download Complainant’s content without proper compensation” which is not a bona f ide use because “to of f er unauthorized access to copyrighted material available only to subscribers to the Complainant’s platf orm amounts to f raudulent activity” and that none of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply. Finally, the Complainant alleges that the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name was, and currently is, in bad faith, contrary to the Policy and the Rules having regard to the prior use and well-known nature of the Complainant’s trademark, and advances the argument that the use of the Disputed Domain Name “to allow users to download Complainant’s content for free and without a subscription” is use in bad f aith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. On April 12, 2024, the Respondent sent an inf ormal email communication to the Center, indicating he is ready to transf er the Disputed Domain Name. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proving the f ollowing: (i) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and (iii) that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad f aith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the Disputed Domain Names. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. The requirements of the first element for purposes of the Policy may be satisfied by a trademark registered in any country. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.2.1. The Complainant has produced suf f icient evidence to demonstrate that it has registered trademark rights in the mark SLIDESHARE in the US and many other jurisdictions. Turning to whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical or conf usingly similar to the SLIDESHARE trademark, the Panel observes that the Disputed Domain Name is comprised of : (a) the letter “s”; (b ) f ollowed by an exact reproduction of the Complainant’s trademark SLIDESHARE; (c) followed by the generic Top-Level Do main (“g TLD”) “.co m”. It is well established that the gTLD used as part of a domain name is generally disregarded under the f irst element confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.11. The relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of each of the Disputed Domain Name, specif ically: “sslideshare”. The Panel f inds that the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of the letter “s ”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds the addition of such letter does not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.8. Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although 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 difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is of ten 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 f orward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent f ails to come f orward with such page 4 relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel notes the evidence that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a webpage that offers a tool to download the Complainant’s content without proper compensation and finds that this does not represent a bona f ide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or f air use, given the evidenced reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s mark or capacity to otherwise mislead Internet users. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established for the Disputed Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad f aith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.2.1. In the present case, the Panel finds that the evidence in the case shows the Respondent registered and has used the Disputed Domain Name in bad f aith. On the issue of registration, taking into account the composition of the Disputed Domain Name and the distinctive nature of the Complainant’s trademark, the Panel is satisf ied that the Respondent knew of and targeted the Complainant’s trademark SLIDESHARE when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has held registered rights in the trademark since at least 2012 and has been in business since 2006. This Panel f inds that there is no reason for the Respondent to have registered the Disputed Domain Name other than to trade of f the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s well-known trademark. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. Further, a gap of several years between registration of a complainant’s trademark and respondent’s registration of a disputed domain name (containing the trademark) can indicate bad faith registration. In this case, the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name at least 10 years af ter the Complainant established registered trademark rights in the SLIDESHARE mark, which coupled with the Respondent’s use, af f irms that the Respondent was targeting the Complainant. On the issue of use, the Complainant’s evidence is that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a Respondent’s website where internet users can supposedly download a tool that “offers [users] the ability to avoid signing up for the Complainant’s services by acting as a proxy and manipulating the target URL to allow f o r f ree downloads of documents”. The Panel f inds that the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name to facilitate a tool for unauthorized downloading of content f rom the Complainant’s website amounts to bad f aith under the Policy. In the circumstances, the Panel f inds the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes bad f aith under the Policy. page 5 Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name <sslideshare.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Nicholas Weston/ Nicholas Weston Sole Panelist Date: June 24, 2024

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.