Truecar-pp.com + 6 more domains

The timeline behind truecar-pp.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 TrueCar, Inc. v. 香港九龙公司 / qicheshuadan1@outlook.com aa Claim Number: FA2406002104222 PARTIES Complainant is TrueCar, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Chelsea E. Carbone of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, California, USA. Respondent is 香港九龙公司 / qicheshuadan1@outlook.com aa ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <truecar-pp.com>, <truecar-bc.com>, <truecar-ca.com>, <truecar-ab.com>, <trueca-yt.com>, <trueca-cq.com> and <truecar-net.com> (collectively "Domain Names"), registered with Name.Com, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have 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 June 27, 2024; Forum received payment on June 27, 2024. On June 28, 2024, Name.Com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <truecar-pp.com>, <truecar-bc.com>, <truecar-ca.com>, <truecar-ab.com>, <trueca-yt.com>, <trueca-cq.com> and <truecar-net.com> domain names are registered with Name.Com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Name.Com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.Com, 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 July 3, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 23, 2024 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@truecar-pp.com, postmaster@truecar-bc.com, postmaster@truecar-ca.com, postmaster@truecar-ab.com, postmaster@trueca-yt.com, postmaster@trueca-cq.com and postmaster@truecar-net.com. Also on July 3, 2024, 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 24, 2024, 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 Since 2008 Complainant has offered services providing online automobile pricing information to second-hand car customers and dealers, including through its website at www.truecar.com. Complainant has registered the TRUECAR mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,419,891, registered October 15, 2013). The Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's TRUECAR mark because they wholly incorporate the mark or a minor misspelling of the mark and then add adding generic two or three letter combinations and a generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names because Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names nor has Respondent been authorized to use Complainant's TRUECAR mark. Respondent is not using the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses the Domain Names to pass off as Complainant by primarily resolving to a website ("Respondent's Website") which reproduces the logo design used by the Complainant and purports to offer similar services. Further, Respondent has used the Domain Names as the basis of a number of e-mail scams, falsely offering job opportunities to jobseekers. Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith because Respondent disrupts Complainant's business by passing off as Complainant and purporting to offer similar services. Respondent acted with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the TRUECAR mark. Respondent also uses the Domain Names in connection with a phishing scheme to obtain personal and financial information by falsely offering employment opportunities with Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant holds trademark rights for the TRUECAR mark. Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to Complainant's TRUECAR mark. 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 and 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 TRUECAR mark based upon registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,419,891, registered October 15, 2013). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, "Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy."). The Panel finds that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the TRUECAR mark as they each incorporate the TRUECAR mark or obvious misspellings of the TRUECAR mark. The Domain Names then add generic two or three letter terms and a gTLD to the mark or misspelling. Addition of generic or descriptive terms and a gTLD to a trade mark or misspelling of a trade mark is generally insufficient to negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("Respondent merely adds the term 'supports' and a '.org' gTLD to the DELL mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent's disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Wells Fargo & Company v. VALERIE CARRINGTON, FA 1621718 (Forum July 2, 2015) (finding that the <wllsfago.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the WELLS FARGO mark as the domain name merely omits the "e" and "r" from the mark while adding the ".com" gTLD suffix.); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). 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 TRUECAR mark. 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, FA 1613011 (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, FA 1621573 (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 "香港九龙公司 / qicheshuadan1@outlook.com aa" 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 the Respondent's Website. The Respondent's Website, through its content and layout, use of a similar logo and offering of similar services, passes itself off as an official website of the Complainant for the purpose of offering services in competition with Complainant's services. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers services that directly 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 Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or legitimate noncommercial or fair use existed where Respondent used the resolving website to sell products branded with Complainant's MERRELL mark, and were either counterfeit products or legitimate products of Complainant being resold without authorization). See also Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). In addition, Complainant alleges, and provides evidence supporting its allegations, that Respondent uses email addresses associated with a number of the Domain Names to attempt to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scam, purporting to offer employment to jobseekers as a precursor to requesting personal information or money from them. Use of a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant through emails is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Emerson Electric Co. v. Adilcon Rocha, FA 1735949 (Forum July 11, 2017) (finding that respondent's attempt to pass off as complainant through emails does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services and, as such, respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. ruth weinstein, FA 1770352 (Forum Mar. 7, 2018) ("Use of a disputed domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as a complainant and to conduct a phishing scheme is indicative of a failure to use said domain name in connection with a bona fide offer of goods and services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or otherwise fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Names, May 2024, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's TRUECAR mark since the Respondent's Website passes itself of as an website of the Complainant for the purpose of offering competing services. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register 7 domain names that contain the TRUECAR mark (or a minor misspelling) and use them to redirect to a website offering competing services other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the TRUECAR mark. 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 TRUECAR mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Names to resolve to a website offering services that compete with the Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (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 See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."). In addition, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith as Respondent uses e-mail addresses associated with the Domain Names to attempt to pass itself off as the Complainant for phishing purposes. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant via email can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b) (iii) and (iv). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) ("Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant's CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant's business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)"); see also Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(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 <truecar-pp.com>, <truecar-bc.com>, <truecar-ca.com>, <truecar-ab.com>, <trueca-yt.com>, <trueca-cq.com> and <truecar-net.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist Dated: July 24, 2024 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.