ZipRecruiter, Inc. v Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico

WIPO Case No. DCO2023-0086

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

ZipRecruiter, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico

Case No. DCO2023-0086

1. The Parties

The Complainant is ZipRecruiter, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by

SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <ziprecruter.co> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 5, 2023.

On October 6, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On October 6, 2023, 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 (Registration Private, DomainsByProxy.com) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 9,
2023, 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

October 12, 2023.

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 paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 2, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 3, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on November 9, 2023. 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is an American online recruitment company that is ranked amongst the fastest growing
technology companies in the world. The Complainant owns the following trademark registrations for

ZIPRECRUITER:

- United States registration No. 3934310 registered on March 22, 2011;

- European Union registration No. 015070873 registered on June 13, 2016.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 3, 2023. The disputed domain name resolves

to a website with Pay-Per-Click (“PPC”) links related to recruitment and employment.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the

Complainant has rights. The Complainant owns the trademark ZIPRECRUITER and previous panels have

recognized the value of the Complainant’s trademark and its association with the Complainant. The disputed

domain name replicates the Complainant’s trademark except that it subtracts the letter “i”. This is

typosquatting and does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark. The

Top-Level-Domain (“TLD”) “.co” should be ignored as it is a standard registration requirement.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain

name. The Respondent does not have any trademark rights in “ziprecruter” or “ziprecruiter”. The

Respondent is not licensed by the Complainant to use its trademark. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as it displays a PPC page which direct to websites of third parties offering services competitive to the

Complainant. The Respondent is not known, nor has ever been known by the term “ziprecruiter” or

“ziprecruter”.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant’s trademark registration predates the creation of the disputed domain name by twelve

years and the Complainant has acquired goodwill in its trademark. An online search will reveal the

Complainant’s trademark. Public trademark databases are also available and would show the registration of

the Complainant’s trademark. This is a case of opportunistic bad faith as the disputed domain name is so

obviously connected to the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent did not reply to the cease-and-desist

letter sent by the Complainant. All of the above demonstrates bad faith registration. The disputed domain
name is being used in bad faith as it resolves to a website with PPC links. The purpose is clearly to generate
commercial gain by misleading online users. Activating the MX records indicates that there could be a risk of

phishing activity, which is bad faith use.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant submitted information publicly available on the trademark registrations for the trademark
ZIPRECRUITER. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its ownership of the trademark

ZIPRECRUITER.

The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark ZIPRECRUITER eliminating the letter

“i”. This is a typical case of typosquatting, which is designed to confuse users (Redbox Automated Retail,

LLC d/b/a Redbox v. Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2019-1600). The TLD “.co” is typically ignored when

assessing confusing similarity as it is a standard registration requirement.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the

Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make at least a prima facie showing that a respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such showing is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent. In the instant case, the Complainant asserts, amongst other things, that the Respondent is not authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark. Therefore, the Complainant has established a prima facie case and the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests.

The Respondent has not provided any evidence to show that it has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In addition, UDRP panels have found that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links capitalize on the

reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark. The PPC links relate to employment, which is the service

provided by the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel is of the view that the Respondent is trying to capitalize

on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s mark. In Legacy Health System v. Nijat Hassanov,

WIPO Case No. D2008-1708, it was found that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests as

“the sole purpose of the disputed domain name is to resolve to pay-per-click advertising websites and collect

click-through revenue from advertising links. Such use demonstrates that the Respondent has used the

disputed domain name to derive a commercial benefit. There is no indication on the website that the

Respondent has made a bona fide use of the disputed domain name”.

Furthermore, given that the disputed domain name is a classic example of typosquatting, whereby the

Respondent has intentionally sought to mislead Internet users unaware of the one-letter difference between

the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent cannot be said to have rights

or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent must have known about the Complainant’s business and trademark for the following

reasons:

1. The Complainant had been in operation for more than a decade by the time the disputed domain name

was created.

2. The disputed domain name resolves to a website with PPC links relating to the Complainant’s services.

3. A simple online search would reveal the Complainant and its trademark.

page 4

Given that the disputed domain name resolves to a page with PPC links, there is bad faith use in the current circumstances. In Mpire Corporation v. Michael Frey, WIPO Case No. D2009-0258, the Panel found that

“While the intention to earn click-through-revenue is not in itself illegitimate, the use of a domain name that is

deceptively similar to a trademark to obtain click-through-revenue is found to be bad faith use”.

Also, typosquatting itself may be an indication of bad faith (ESPN, Inc v. XC2, WIPO Case No. D2005-0444).

In the present case, the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark and has deleted only one

letter in order to confuse Internet users and to benefit from typos.

Such conduct of using a domain name, to attract Internet users for commercial gain, would fall squarely
within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Given the above, the Panel believes that the

Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to trade off the reputation of the

Complainant’s trademark.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

7. Decision

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, <ziprecruter.co> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Nayiri Boghossian/

Nayiri Boghossian

Sole Panelist
Date: November 23, 2023