Engadgetss.com, Yourtechcrunch.com

The timeline behind engadgetss.com

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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

DECISION Yahoo Inc. v. sehrish kiran / Backlinks media Claim Number: FA2210002017294 PARTIES Complainant is Yahoo Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Griffin Barnett of Perkins Coie LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is sehrish kiran / Backlinks media (“Respondent”), Pakistan. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <engadgetss.com> and <yourtechcrunch.com> (“Domain Names”), registered with Namecheap, Inc., and Launchpad.com Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 24, 2022; Forum received payment on October 24, 2022. On October 25, 2022, Namecheap, Inc. and Launchpad.com Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <engadgetss.com> and <yourtechcrunch.com> domain names are registered with Namecheap, Inc. and Launchpad.com Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Namecheap, Inc. and Launchpad.com Inc. have verified that Respondent is bound by the Namecheap, Inc. and Launchpad.com Inc. registration agreements 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 28, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 17, 2022 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@engadgetss.com, postmaster@yourtechcrunch.com. Also on October 28, 2022, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On November 28, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant, Yahoo Inc., and its affiliate Yahoo Assets LLC, provide internet and online content services. The ENGADGET mark is used in connection with a technology website and blog, while the TECHCRUNCH mark is used in connection with a news service for technology and business startups. Complainant has rights in both the ENGADGET and TECHCRUNCH marks due to trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 3,232,307 registered on April 24, 2007 for the ENGADGET mark and Reg. No. 4,064,062 registered on November 29, 2011 for the TECHCRUNCH mark). The <engadgetss.com> and <yourtechcrunch.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, merely adding a letters and generic term to the wholly incorporated marks, along with a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Respondent lacks rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Names because it is not commonly known by the names, and Complainant has never authorized or licensed any rights to Respondent to use its marks. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names, as they resolve to template websites to act as a façade to obscure the fact that Respondent is engaged in cybersquatting targeting the Complainant. The <engadgetss.com> domain name was also offered for sale to Complainant. Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith. Respondent registered the Domain Names in order to disrupt Complainant’s business and divert customers for commercial gain. The Domain Name <engadgetss.com> was offered for sale for an inflated price and registered under a privacy service. Respondent demonstrates a pattern of bad faith registration and use. Finally, Respondent registered the Domain Names with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ENGADGET and TECHCRUNCH marks. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. On October 28, 2022 Forum received a single PDF document from the Respondent indicating that it had renewed the <yourtechcrunch.com> domain name for US$ 18.99 on September 9, 2022. FINDINGS Complainant holds trademark rights for the ENGADGET and TECHCRUNCH marks. Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to one of Complainant’s ENGADGET and TECHCRUNCH marks. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Names in bad faith. 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 has rights in the ENGADGET and TECHCRUNCH marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the marks with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 3,232,307 registered on April 24, 2007 for the ENGADGET mark and Reg. No. 4,064,062 registered on November 29, 2011 for the TECHCRUNCH mark). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel finds that each of the Domain Names are confusingly similar to either the ENGADGET and TECHCRUNCH mark as they each incorporate the entire mark while adding either the letters “ss” or a generic term and the “.com” gTLD. Adding letters or generic term and a gTLD to a mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Svensson Viljae, FA 1784650 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding confusing similarity where “[t]he disputed domain name <skechers-outlet.com> adds a hyphen and the generic term ‘outlet’ to Complainant's registered SKECHERS mark, and appends the ‘.com’ top-level domain.”); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Sergey Valerievich Kireev / Kireev, FA 1784651 (Forum June 5, 2018) (holding that the domain name consists of the BITTREX mark and adds “the letters ‘btc’ and the gTLD .com which do not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark.”). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the ENGADGET and TECHCRUNCH marks. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information of record lists “sehrish kiran / Backlinks media” as the registrants of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Domain Names resolve to websites (“Respondent’s Websites”) that appear to offer news and opinion services in competition with Complainant’s news and opinion services that it offers under the ENGADGET and TECHCRUNCH marks. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers goods or services that compete with a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik, FA 1654759 (Forum February 3, 2016) (finding that Complainant provides freelance talent services, and that Respondent competes with Complainant by promoting freelance talent services through the disputed domain’s resolving webpage, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). See also General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “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).”). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds that, at the time of registration of the Domain Names, October and November 2021, Respondent, on the balance of probabilities, had actual knowledge of Complainant’s ENGADGET and TECHCRUNCH marks since the Respondent’s Websites offer services in competition with Complainant, who had used each of its marks for over 15 years and had developed a considerable reputation in them. There is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for the Respondent to register two domain names that wholly incorporate two marks owned by the Complainant and used for media (the ENGADGET and TECHCRUNCH marks) and then use those domain names to redirect visitors to websites offering news services other than to take advantage of Complainant’s reputation in the ENGADGET and TECHCRUNCH marks. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant’s ENGADGET and TECHCRUNCH marks for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Names to resolve to websites offering competing services. Using a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to a respondent’s competing website can show bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt the complainant’s business by diverting Internet users from the complainant’s website to the respondent’s website where it offered competing printer products). See also Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). 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.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <engadgetss.com> and <yourtechcrunch.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist Dated: November 28, 2022 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.