The Complainant is Salesforce.com, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Winterfeldt IP Group PLLC, United States.
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org, United States / XT Yazilim Hizmetleri Ltd. Sti. (8590955430) Mng D, Turkey.
The disputed domain name <pipardot.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 12, 2020. On November 13, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 13, 2020, 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 16, 2020, 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 16, 2020.
The Center verified that the Complaint, together with 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 17, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 7, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 8, 2020.
The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on December 22, 2020. 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 a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, United States, and headquartered in California, United States. It is a provider of customer relationship management and other cloud-based software services, including services supplied under the name and trademark PARDOT.
The Complainant is the owner of various registrations for the trademark PARDOT in several territories. Those registrations include, for example:
- European Union trademark number 11626322 for the word mark PARDOT, registered on July 30, 2013;
- International trademark number 1382866 for the word mark PARDOT, registered on October 30, 2017.
The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <pardot.com> and operates websites from URLs including “www.pardot.com” and “www.pi.pardot.com”.
The disputed domain name was registered on December 18, 2017.
The disputed domain name has resolved to a website at “www.pipardot.com”. According to screenshots exhibited by the Complainant, the website was (on an unknown date) labelled “Temporarily Down for Maintenance”.
The Complainant states that it provides software services to over 150,000 businesses around the world and that it earned revenues in excess of USD 17 billion in 2020. It states that it has used the PARDOT mark and <pardot.com> domain name since 2007 in connection with a portal which enables marketing and sales teams to track leads and create, deploy, manage, and audit email, social media, and paid marketing campaigns. It states that its <pi.pardot.com> third-level domain is used in connection with certain specific features of the PARDOT product. The Complainant submits that, as a result of its promotion of the PARDOT mark and media publicity which it has received, that trademark has become widely recognized in the United States and worldwide and has gained significant commercial goodwill. The Complainant exhibits evidence of industry recognition and awards received; although the Panel notes that many of these also relate to the Complainant and its services generally and not necessarily specifically to the PARDOT mark.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its PARDOT trademark. It states that the disputed domain name incorporates the PARDOT mark in its entirely and differs only from that trademark by the addition of the prefix “pi”. The Complainant contends that this prefix serves only to increase the likelihood of confusion in view of the Complainant’s own use of its <pi.pardot.com> third-level domain.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that it has never authorized the Respondent to use its PARDOT trademark, that the Respondent has not commonly been known by that name, and that the Respondent is making neither bona fide commercial use nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the purpose of a website, which hosts and disseminates a modified version of the Complainant’s tracking code in JavaScript. The Complainant further submits that the purpose of the Respondent’s code is malicious, being designed to infect third-party computers with malware and/or to facilitate a “phishing” scam.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the Respondent can only have registered the disputed domain name because of its association with the Complainant’s PARDOT trademark, unfairly to capitalize on the Complainant’s goodwill by misleading Internet users into believing there was a connection between the disputed domain name and the Complainant. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the purpose of distributing malware and to enrich itself by way of “phishing” or other fraudulent activity. The Complainant submits in the circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant (paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy).
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and,
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of trademark registrations in various territories for the mark PARDOT. The disputed domain name, <pipardot.com>, wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademark PARDOT together with the prefix “pi”. This prefix does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark, which is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not filed a Response in this proceeding and has not submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. There being no other evidence before the Panel of any such rights or legitimate interests, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds the Complainant’s trademark PARDOT to be distinctive in nature and also notes the Complainant’s use (in commerce) of the domain name <pardot.com> and URL “www.pi.pardot.com”. The Respondent having provided no explanation for its choice of the disputed domain name, the Panel infers that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to target the Complainant’s PARDOT mark and “www.pi.pardot.com” URL and to thereby take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s commercial goodwill accordingly.
The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is inherently misleading and constitutes an impersonation of the Complainant, such that any use of the disputed domain name without the Complainant’s consent is likely to constitute use in bad faith. Further, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s submissions (which are not disputed by the Respondent) that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to promote and/or disseminate software based on the Complainant’s proprietary software. While the precise nature of that software is unclear from the evidence provided, the Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name in connection with any such offering constitutes use in bad faith and is likely on balance to have been undertaken for commercial gain or nefarious purpose. The Panel therefore concludes that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product or service on its website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).
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 <pipardot.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: January 5, 2021