Duckducgo.com

The timeline behind duckducgo.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Duck Duck Go, Inc. v. Karl Schnurch / EdenMedia Claim Number: FA2407002108166 PARTIES Complainant is Duck Duck Go, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Christina J. Moser of Baker & Hostetler LLP, Ohio, USA. Respondent is Karl Schnurch / EdenMedia ("Respondent"), Seychelles. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <duckducgo.com>, registered with Key-Systems GmbH. 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 Forum electronically on July 25, 2024; Forum received payment on July 25, 2024. On July 30, 2024, Key-Systems GmbH confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <duckducgo.com> domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Key-Systems GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems GmbH 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 31, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 20, 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@duckducgo.com. Also on July 31, 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 August 21, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 i) Complainant is a global Internet search engine service provider with a focus on protecting user privacy. Providing search results for over three billion searches each month, Complainant is the fourth largest search engine in the US and also offers a mobile privacy browser. Complainant has rights in the DUCKDUCKGO mark based upon trademark registrations, inter alia, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 3,527,274 registered November 4, 2008). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DUCKDUCKGO mark because it contains Complainant's mark in its entirety and simply misspells the mark by removing the single letter "K." ii) Respondent has no legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the DUCKDUCKGO mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The disputed domain name from time to time directs users to various websites. Respondent's dissemination of privacy conscious messages is similar in concept to the advertised privacy protections noted on Complainant's website. iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. By only removing the "k" from Complainant's trademark, Respondent attempts to capitalize on Internet users who make spelling mistakes in their searches. Respondent had constructive notice of Complainant's trademarks. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on February 16, 2012. 2. Complainant has established rights in the DUCKDUCKGO mark based upon registration, inter alia, with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,527,274 registered November 4, 2008). 3. The disputed domain name occasionally directs users to various websites. Respondent's dissemination of privacy-conscious messages is conceptually similar to the advertised privacy protections noted on Complainant's website. 4. The website associated with the disputed domain name advertises links to third-party services, such as "Route Maps," "Online Games," and "Image Search." 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 claims rights in the DUCKDUCKGO mark based upon registration, inter alia, with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,527,274 registered November 4, 2008). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is a valid showing of rights in a mark. Since Complainant provides evidence of registration of the DUCKDUCKGO mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the mark under Policy 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <duckducgo.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's DUCKDUCKGO mark because it contains Complainant's mark in its entirety and simply misspells the mark by removing the single letter "K." The omission or addition of a single letter as well as a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Tanya Moulton, FA 2034214 (Forum Apr. 11, 2023) ("When a disputed domain name wholly incorporates another's mark, adding a single letter is insufficient to defeat a finding of confusing similarity."; finding <fwebsteronline.com> domain name confusingly similar to WEBSTER and WEBSTER ONLINE trademarks); ModCloth, Inc. v. James McAvoy, FA 1629102 (Forum Aug. 16, 2015) ("The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because it differs from Complainant's mark by merely adding the letter 'L' . . . "). Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark per 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 Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element."). Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Where a response is lacking, relevant information includes the WHOIS and any other assertions by a complainant regarding the nature of its relationship with a respondent. The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS information identifies "Karl Schnurch / EdenMedia" as the registrant. Complainant asserts that nothing in the record demonstrates that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its DUCKDUCKGO mark. The Panel thus finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as it occasionally directs users to various websites. Respondent's dissemination of privacy-conscious messages is conceptually similar to the advertised privacy protections noted on Complainant's website. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name's resolving website advertises links to third-party services, such as "Route Maps," "Online Games," and "Image Search" related to the goods and services associated with Complainant and its competitors. Where a respondent uses a domain to redirect users to competing third-party services, the panel may find the respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See TGI Friday's of Minnesota, Inc. v. Tulip Company / Tulip Trading Company, FA 1691369 (Forum Oct. 10, 2016) ("Respondent uses the domain for a parking page displaying various links that consumers are likely to associate with Complainant, but that simply redirect to additional advertisements and links that divert traffic to third-party websites not affiliated with Complainant…The Panel here finds that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services."). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under 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 by removing only the "k" from Complainant's trademark, attempting to capitalize on Internet users' spelling mistakes in their searches. As previously noted, the disputed domain name occasionally directs users to various websites. Respondent's dissemination of privacy-conscious messages is conceptually similar to the advertised privacy protections on Complainant's website. The Panel also notes that the disputed domain name's resolving website advertises links to third-party services, such as "Route Maps," "Online Games," and "Image Search," which are related to goods and services associated with Complainant and its competitors. The Panel finds that use of a disputed domain name to redirect consumers to competing goods or services can be evidence of bad faith disruption of a complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See block.one v. Negalize Interactive Things, FA 1798280 (Forum Aug. 21, 2018) ("Offering links to competing products or services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another."); see also American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA 1760954 (Forum Jan. 8, 2018) ("Respondent's hosting of links to Complainant's competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)"). The Panel finds that Respondent's activities disrupt Complainant's business by diverting Internet users who are seeking Complainant to competitors' websites. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) or (iv). Complainant further argues that Respondent had constructive knowledge of Complainant's mark and rights due to Complainant's trademark registrations, including but not limited to those mentioned above. While constructive knowledge is insufficient for finding of bad faith, per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) actual knowledge of a complainant's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith and may be demonstrated by the respondent's use of the disputed domain name. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum Jan. 5, 2018) ("[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used that as an email address to pass itself off as Complainant shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration."). The Panel notes that as a result of the long commercial success of the DUCKDUCKGO mark and Complainant's extensive use, promotion, and registration of the DUCKDUCKGO mark for many years, the DUCKDUCKGO mark has long been well known. The Panel infers, due to the notoriety of Complainant's mark and the manner of use of the disputed domain name that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the DUCKDUCKGO mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name, and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain 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 <duckducgo.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: August 22, 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.