Indeedstaffingservices.com

The timeline behind indeedstaffingservices.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.

DECISION Indeed, Inc. v. Shiva Kumar Claim Number: FA1908001856394 PARTIES Complainant is Indeed, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Justin S. Haddock of Indeed, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Shiva Kumar (“Respondent”), India. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <indeedstaffingservices.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 9, 2019; the Forum received payment on August 9, 2019. On August 9, 2019, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <indeedstaffingservices.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On August 12, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 3, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@indeedstaffingservices.com. Also on August 12, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On September 4, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant states that it provides the world’s largest job site, with over 200 million unique visitors every month from over 60 different countries. Complainant has rights in the INDEED mark through its trademark registration in the United States in 2006. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its INDEED mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic terms “staffing” and “services,” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent offers job search and placement services in direct competition with Complainant. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent attempts to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark. Respondent is offering services that directly compete with Complainant. Lastly, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the INDEED prior to registration of the domain name due to the fame of the INDEED mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has registered trademarks for the mark INDEED and uses it to provide job placement services. The mark was registered in 2006. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The disputed domain name was registered in 2018. The resolving website offers products and services that compete with those of Complainant. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s INDEED mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic terms “staffing” and “services” along with the “.com” gTLD. Registration of a disputed domain name that includes a wholly incorporated mark and adds a generic term and a gTLD does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore, the Panel finds that the <indeedstaffingservices.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s INDEED mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: absent a reply, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Shiva Kumar.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer job search and placement services in direct competition with Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name that offers competing goods or services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (“use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website offers services that directly compete with those of Complainant. This may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv). See LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, FA1762308 (Forum Jan. 9, 2018) (finding that the rrespondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer competing loan services disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <indeedstaffingservices.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: September 4, 2019 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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