Official-udemy.com

The timeline behind official-udemy.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 Udemy, Inc. v. Maxclimb Maxclimb / Jumbo Ads Claim Number: FA2501002136358 PARTIES Complainant is Udemy, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jessica Tam of Udemy, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Maxclimb Maxclimb / Jumbo Ads ("Respondent"), India. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <official-udemy.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with NameCheap, 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 January 22, 2025; Forum received payment on January 22, 2025. On January 22, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <official-udemy.com> 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 January 23, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 12, 2025 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@official-udemy.com. Also on January 23, 2025, 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 February 13, 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 Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant provides an online learning platform at www.udemy.com ("Complainant's Website") which provides thousands of education courses, taught by over 75,000 instructors to over 73 million students. Complainant has rights in the UDEMY mark based on registration in numerous jurisdictions including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 4,314,406, registered April 2, 2013). Respondent's domain name, <official-udemy.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, only adding the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") and the generic term "official-" to the UDEMY mark. Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <official-udemy.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not an authorized user or licensee of the UDEMY mark. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the Domain Name redirects to Complainant's Website (and also offers an invalid coupon for Complainant's services). Respondent registered and uses the <official-udemy.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent created and registered the Domain Name with the intention of creating confusion between the Domain Name and the UDEMY mark. Additionally, the Domain Name lands on Complainant's legitimate website which indicates that Respondent registered the Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights to the UDEMY mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant holds trademark rights for the UDEMY mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's UDEMY mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name 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 UDEMY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g Reg. No. 4,314,406, registered April 2, 2013). 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 the <official-udemy.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's UDEMY mark as it merely adds the generic term "official-" and the ".com" gTLD to the UDEMY mark. The addition of a generic term and gTLD to a mark is generally insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) ("The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms 'genuine' and 'parts' as well as the '.com' gTLD."). 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 Name. 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 Name 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 Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the UDEMY 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 lists "Maxclimb Maxclimb / Jumbo Ads" as registrant 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 Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Domain Name is presently inactive but prior to the commencement of the proceeding the Domain Name redirected to the Complainant's Website (with the additional offer of an invalid coupon for Complainant's services). The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a complainant's website does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as it may provide a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See Direct Line Ins. plc v. Low-cost-domain, FA 1337658 (Forum Sept. 8, 2010) ("The Panel finds that using Complainant's mark in a domain name over which Complainant has no control, even if the domain name redirects to Complainant's actual site, is not consistent with the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 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 Name, December 16, 2024, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's UDEMY mark since the Domain Name, prior to the commencement of the proceeding, redirected to Complainant's Website. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that contains the coined UDEMY mark and use it to redirect visitors to the Complainant's Website other than to create a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. 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 Name in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant's UDEMY mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve Complainant's Website thereby creating a false impression of affiliation. Indeed, given the nature of the Domain Name combining the UDEMY mark with the term "official", it would be difficult to conceive of a way the Domain Name could be used that would not create a false impression of association with Complainant. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), redirecting a disputed domain name to a complainant's own website may constitute bad faith. See Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Banks, D2003-0293 (WIPO June 6, 2003) (concluding that respondent acted in bad faith by using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet traffic to Complainant's own website because it "interferes with Complainant's ability to control the use of its own trademarks on the Internet" . . . [and] creates a risk that Respondent could collect and use data about Internet users intending to access Complainant's website"); see also Altavista Co. v. Brunosousa, D2002-0109 (WIPO Apr. 3, 2002) (finding, when a domain name is used to redirect to the complainant's website, that "such redirection will allow the Respondent to divert future users to competing web sites after having built up mistaken confidence in the source of the content," which constitutes bad faith registration and use). 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 <official-udemy.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist Dated: February 13, 2025 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.