The Complainant is ZipRecruiter Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama.
The disputed domain name <ziprecrjiter.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 10, 2021. On November 10, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 10, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 12, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 12, 2021.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 19, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 9, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 10, 2021.
The Center appointed Assen Alexiev as the sole panelist in this matter on December 16, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
The Complainant is an online recruitment company founded in 2010. Its services are used by over 7 million active job seekers, over 40 million job alert email subscribers and over 10,000 new companies every month. The Complainant currently has marketing operations in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, and its services and products are used by job seekers and employers in multiple countries around the world.
The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations for the sign ZIPRECRUITER (the “ZIPRECRUITER trademark”):
− the United States trademark ZIPRECRUITER with registration No. 3934310, registered on March 22, 2011 for services in International Class 42;
− the European Union trademark ZIPRECRUITER with registration No. 015070873, registered on June 13, 2016 for goods and services in International Classes 9, 36, 41 and 42;
− the Australian trademark ZIPRECRUITER with registration No. 1749916, registered on September 14, 2016 for goods and services in International Classes 9, 36, 41 and 42;
− the United States trademark ZIPRECRUITER with registration No. 5212840, registered on May 30, 2017 for goods and services in International Classes 9, 35 and 42; and
− the Canadian trademark ZIPRECRUITER with registration No. TMA979480, registered on August 28, 2017 for goods and services in International Classes 9, 41 and 42.
The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <ziprecruiter.com>, which resolves to its main website, and has developed several mobile and tablet applications “ZipRecruiter Job Search”, “Job Search by Zip Recruiter” and “ZipRecruiter Employer” available on Google Play and Apple App Store, which enable users to access the Complainant’s services.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 14, 2021. It redirects Internet users to third-party nonsecure websites.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ZIPRECRUITER trademark, because the only element of the disputed domain name that differs from the trademark is the replacement of the letter “u” with the letter “j” (adjacent to one another on a “qwerty” keyboard), which is not sufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has intentionally introduced the misspelling, as Internet users could reasonably make the same error when attempting to input the Complainant’s trademark into the URL bar of a web browser.
According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, because it is not known under the disputed domain name, has no rights in the ZIPRECRUITER trademark, and has not received any license from the Complainant to use a domain name that features this trademark. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for commercial gain by automatically redirecting online users to a rotating series of third-party websites, forced search engine searches, pay-per-click (“PPC”) webpages, etc., some of which appear to attempt to install malware to users’ computers.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The ZIPRECRUITER trademark has accrued substantial goodwill and recognition, and its registration predates the registration of the disputed domain name by at least 10 years. The Complainant adds that the disputed domain name is an intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark, which is indicative of typosquatting.
According to the Complainant, the similarity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trademark and its use for automatic redirections to third-party websites, show that the Respondent has attempted to generate a commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and redirecting traffic to these third-party websites.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has listed the disputed domain name for sale on the SEDO platformfor the price of USD 899, which is far beyond what would reasonably be expected to be within the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs related to the disputed domain name. The Complainant notes that the circumstances surrounding the registration and use of the disputed domain name are an indication of bad faith and suggests the Respondent is aware of the value of the disputed domain name as a trademark, as neither the term “ziprecuiter” nor the misspelling “ziprecrjiter” has inherent meaning, beyond its status as the Complainant’s already established brand, and that the disputed domain name has been intentionally registered and used with the Complainant’s brand in mind, in view of profiting from its sale.
The Complainant further submits that it sent a cease-and-desist letter on September 30, 2021 to put the Respondent on notice of the Complainant’s trademark rights and with a view to resolving the matter amicably, but the Respondent chose not to respond.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has already been found to have acted in bad faith in several UDRP proceedings, including two cases involving the same Parties, i.e., ZipRecruiter Inc. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No. D2020-3323, and ZipRecruiter Inc. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No. D2020-0570.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a), the Complainant must prove each of the following to justify the transfer of the disputed domain name:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
By the Rules, paragraph 5(c)(i), it is expected of a respondent to: “[r]espond specifically to the statements and allegations contained in the complaint and include any and all bases for the Respondent (domain name holder) to retain registration and use of the disputed domain name […].”
The Complainant has provided evidence that it is the owner of the ZIPRECRUITER trademark. In view of this, the Panel accepts that the Complainant has established its rights in this trademark for the purposes of the present proceeding.
The Panel notes that a common practice has emerged under the Policy to disregard in appropriate circumstances the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) section of domain names for the purposes of the comparison under the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). See section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Panel sees no reason not to follow the same approach here, so it will disregard the “.com” gTLD of the disputed domain name.
The relevant element of the disputed domain name is therefore “ziprecrjiter”. The Panel is not aware of any meaning of this sequence. Rather, as noted by the Complainant, this sequence appears to be a misspelling of the ZIPRECRUITER trademark with one letter changed – “u” is replaced by “j”, which is adjacent to it on the keyboard. This misspelling may easily go unnoticed by Internet users, and they are likely to recognize the ZIPRECRUITER trademark in the disputed domain name. As discussed in section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark (such as the use of adjacent keyboard letters) is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.
Taking the above into account, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ZIPRECRUITER trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, UDRP panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often-impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, 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. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, because it is not commonly known by it, and the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the ZIPRECRUITER trademark. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has registered and used it to exploit the Complainant’s goodwill in the ZIPRECRUITER trademark by attracting Internet users and exposing them to various third-party websites, and has offered the disputed domain name for sale at a price in excess of its out-of-pocket costs directly related to it. The Complainant has thus established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has not submitted a response and has not provided any arguments in support of the existence of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
As discussed in section 6.A above, the disputed domain name appears to be a misspelling of the distinctive ZIPRECRUITER trademark, and the evidence in the case file shows that the disputed domain name automatically redirects visitors to various third party websites unrelated to the Complainant.
In view of the above, the Panel concludes that it is more likely than not that the Respondent has targeted the ZIPRECRUITER trademark with the registration and use of the disputed domain name in an attempt to improperly capitalize on the reputation and goodwill associated with this trademark by confusing and attracting Internet users looking for the Complainant and redirecting them to third-party offerings. This conduct does not appear as legitimate and does not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights and or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists four illustrative alternative circumstances that shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith by a respondent, namely:
“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.”
As discussed in the previous sections, the disputed domain name appears to be a typosquatted version of the distinctive ZIPRECRUITER trademark which was first registered ten years earlier, and the evidence in the case file shows that the disputed domain name redirects users to various third-party websites unrelated to the Complainant. In view of this, the Panel concludes that the Respondent must have been aware of the goodwill of the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trademark when it registered the disputed domain name, and that it is more likely that the Respondent registered and is using it in an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trademark as to the affiliation of the third party websites to which the disputed domain name redirects. This supports a finding of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel also finds that the use of the disputed domain name in connection with the variety of random websites including malware distribution websites constitutes bad faith (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3).
The evidence in the case file also shows that the Respondent has offered the disputed domain name for sale for the price of USD 899. As noted by the Complainant, this amount is well in excess of the reasonable out-of-pocket costs of the Respondent related to the disputed domain name. Since the Panel’s conclusion is that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, this evidence supports a finding of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.
In view of all the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <ziprecrjiter.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Assen Alexiev
Sole Panelist
Date: December 30, 2021