Zerobouncemailer.co

The timeline behind zerobouncemailer.co

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 Hertza L.L.C., dba ZeroBounce v. SK Mazharuddin Claim Number: FA2110001969655 PARTIES Complainant is Hertza L.L.C., dba ZeroBounce (“Complainant”), represented by Sarah R. Frankfort of de Diego Law LLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is SK Mazharuddin (“Respondent”), India. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <zerobouncemailer.co>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.. 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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 19, 2021; the Forum received payment on October 19, 2021. On October 19, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 October 20, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 9, 2021 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@zerobouncemailer.co. Also on October 20, 2021, 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 November 10, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 i) Complainant markets and sells email validation services. Complainant has rights in the ZEROBOUNCE mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 5,654,128, registered Jan. 15, 2019). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ZEROBOUNCE mark since it incorporates the entire mark, simply adding the descriptive term “mailer” and the “.co” top-level domain (“TLD”). ii) Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent uses a proxy service to register the disputed domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant’s ZEROBOUNCE mark. iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith since the disputed domain name fails to resolve to an active webpage. Additionally, Respondent’s use of a privacy service suggests bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a response to this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on August 11, 2021. 2. Complainant has rights in the ZEROBOUNCE mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 5,654,128, registered January 15, 2019). 3. The disputed domain name does not lead to an active webpage. 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 Complainant claims to have rights in the ZEROBOUNCE mark based upon registration with the USPTO. Registration with the USPTO is generally sufficient to establish rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Complainant provides evidence of its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,654,128, registered January 15, 2019). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the ZEROBOUNCE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <zerobouncemailer.co> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ZEROBOUNCE mark since it incorporates the entire mark, simply adding the descriptive term “mailer” and the “.co” TLD. Addition of a generic or descriptive terms and a TLD is generally insufficient to overcome confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See YETI Coolers, LLC v. Randall Bearden, FA 16060016880755 (Forum Aug. 10, 2016) (finding that the words “powder coating” in the <yetipowdercoating.com> domain name are “merely explicative and directly refer to some of the services rendered by the Complainant” and, therefore, create an “irrefutable confusing similarity” to complainant’s YETI mark). Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”). Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent uses a proxy service to register the disputed domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant’s ZEROBOUNCE mark. WHOIS information listing a privacy service, along with a lack of authorization to use a mark may suggest that a respondent is not commonly known by a domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tenza Trading Ltd. v. WhoisProtectService.net / PROTECTSERVICE, LTD., FA1506001624077 (Forum July 31, 2015) (“The WHOIS information lists ‘WhoisProtectService.net’ as the registrant of record for the disputed domain names. Accordingly, in the absence of a Response, there is no evidence to indicate that Respondent might be known by any of the domain names.”); see also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). The WHOIS information of record has redacted the registrant information and the registrar verification identifies the registrant as “SK Mazharuddin.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). While not directly argued by Complainant, the Panel also finds that Respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) due to Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name. See Dell Inc. v. link growth / Digital Marketing, FA 1785283 (Forum June 7, 2018) (“Respondent’s domain names currently display template websites lacking any substantive content. The Panel finds that Respondent has does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect of the domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).”). The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith since the disputed domain name fails to resolve to an active webpage. The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (finding that in considering whether the passive holding of a domain name, following a bad faith registration of it, satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of the respondent’s behavior, and a remedy can be obtained under the Policy only if those circumstances show that the respondent’s passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith.). The Panel notes that Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <zerobouncemailer.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: November 12, 2021 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.