Metodotaboolapro.com

The timeline behind metodotaboolapro.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 Taboola.com Ltd. v. Oferta Demanda Claim Number: FA2306002047698 PARTIES Complainant is Taboola.com Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by Jessica Galluccio of Taboola.com Ltd., Israel. Respondent is Oferta Demanda (“Respondent”), Brazil. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <metodotaboolapro.com>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with Gransy, s.r.o. PANEL The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 6, 2023; Forum received payment on June 6, 2023. On June 8, 2023, Gransy, s.r.o. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <metodotaboolapro.com> Domain Name is registered with Gransy, s.r.o. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Gransy, s.r.o. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gransy, s.r.o. 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 June 12, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 3, 2023 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@metodotaboolapro.com. Also on June 12, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On July 11, 2023 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant The Complainant is the owner of the mark TABOOLA registered, inter alia, in the USA for Internet search services with first use recorded as 2007. It owns TABOOLA.com. The Domain Name registered in 2023 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TABOOLA mark adding the Portuguese word for method ‘metodo’, the generic term ‘pro’ and the gTLD .com. The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Name has been attached to a site using the Complainant’s mark and logo in its masthead for services related to native ads (advertisements disguised as editorial text). This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. It is registration and use in bad faith diverting and confusing Internet users and disrupting the Complainant’s business. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the mark TABOOLA registered, inter alia, in the USA for Internet search services with first use recorded as 2007. It owns TABOOLA.com. The Domain Name registered in 2023 has been used for a site using the Complainants’s name and logo in its masthead to offer services related to native ads. 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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant's TABOOLA mark (which is registered in USA for internet search services with first use recorded as 2007) the Portuguese word for method ‘metodo’, the generic term ‘pro’ and the gTLD .com. Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds generic terms to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic terms ‘pro’ and ‘metodo’ (method in Portuguese) to the Complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's registered trade mark for the purposes of the Policy. The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The use is commercial and so is not legitimate non commercial fair use. The web site attached to the Domain Name is a commercial site unconnected to the Complainant using the Complainant’s mark and logo in its masthead. The Panel finds this use is deceptive. It is also competing in the sense that it draws traffic away from the Complainant by use of the Complainant’s well known name. As such on the balance of the evidence presented the Panellist finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods and services. (See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise commercial services unconnected with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.). The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and has not rebutted the prima face case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein. As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The use of the Complainant’s logo shows the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its rights and services. Accordingly on the evidence presented the Panellist believes that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name containing the famous trade mark of another with actual knowledge of that mark and its attractive goodwill to draw traffic to the Respondent’s own commercial web site without any reasonable or logical explanation. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to her website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site and services offered on it disrupting the Complainant’s business. See Capital One Financial Corp v DN Manager/Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA 1504001615034 (Forum June, 4, 2015). As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under 4(b)(iii) and (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 <metodotaboolapro.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: July 11, 2023 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.