Appointed by the .In Registry – National Internet Exchange of India
In the matter of:
6433 Champion Grandview Way
Austin, Texas 78750
United States of America …Complainant
Bihar – 834001
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org …Respondent
Disputed Domain Name: www.indeedjobs.ind.in
1) The Parties:
The Complainant in this arbitration, proceeding is Indeed, Inc., 6433 Champion Grandview Way, Building 1, Austin, Texas 78750, United States of America The Complainant is represented by its authorized representative Archer & Angel,#5B, 5th Floor, Commercial Towers, Hotel J W Marriott, Aerocity, New Delhi – 110037, India.
The Respondent in this arbitration proceeding is Akshay Kapoor, Indeed, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Bihar – 834001 as per the details available in the whois database maintained by National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI).
2) The Domain Name, Registrar & Registrant:
The disputed domain name is www.indeedjobs.ind.in. The Registrar is Endurance Domains Technology LLP, c/o Public Domain Registry, 501, IT Building No. 3, NESCO IT Park NESCO Complex, Western Express Highway, Goregaon(East), Mumbai-400063, Maharashtra, India
The Registrant is Godaddy.com LLC, 14455 N Hayden Rd Ste 226, Scottsdale, AZ 85260-6993.
3) Procedural History:
This arbitration proceeding is in accordance with the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP), adopted by the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI). The INDRP Rules of Procedure (the Rules) were approved by NIXI on 28th June, 2005 in accordance with the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. By registering the disputed domain name with the NIXI accredited Registrar, the Respondent agreed to the resolution of the disputes pursuant to the .IN Dispute Resolution Policy and Rules framed there under.
As per the information received from NIXI, the history of the proceedings is as follows:
In accordance with the Rules 2(a) and 4(a), NIXI formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint and appointed Ranjan Narula as the Sole Arbitrator for adjudicating upon the dispute in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Rules framed there under, .IN Domain Dispute Resolution Policy and the Rules framed there under. The Arbitrator submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of impartiality and independence, as required by NIXI.
• The complaint was produced before the Arbitrator on November 28, 2018 and the notice was issued to the Respondent on December 4, 2018 at his email address with a deadline of 10 days to submit his reply to the arbitrator.
• As no response was received, the Arbitrator issued another notice to the Respondent on December 19, 2018 via email granting another opportunity to the Respondent to submit its reply on or before December 24, 2018.
• The Arbitrator received no response from the Respondent within the said timeline and the Arbitrator has not been informed of any settlement between the parties. The Arbitrator thus informed the parties on 28th December, 2018 that the Respondent has not filed its response and has been proceeded ex-parte.
• In view of the above, the complaint is therefore being decided based on the submissions made by the complainant and documents placed on record.
Grounds for administrative proceedings:
A. The disputed domain name is identical with or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and is providing the nature of services identical with or confusingly similar to the services provided by the Complainant;
B. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the impugned domain name;
C. The impugned domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
4) Summary of the Complainant’s contentions:
The Complainant in support of its case has made the following submissions:
1. The Complainant submits that Indeed, Inc. provides the world’s largest job site, with over 200 million unique visitors every month from over 60 different countries. Indeed helps companies of all sizes hire employees and helps job seekers find employment opportunities. The Complainant further submits that it owns and has used indeed.com with an employment related search engine since at least the year 2004, and continues to do so.
2. The Complainant submits that in India, it has significant presence of its brand and trademark INDEED in the market through various promotional and advertising activities. In 2017, the Complainant had sponsored the Talent Acquisition Summit’ in Mumbai during which talks were organized by top industry leaders on next generation digital skills. Recently, the Complainant entered into an agreement with Yash Raj Films, a leading Indian film production company, to integrate its brand and trademark INDEED in a film (released in India in March 2018) wherein the Complainant’s brand was central to the premise.
3. The Complainant submits that it owns and uses the brand and trademark INDEED and variations thereof for over a decade in relation to its job websites and search engines, as well as related goods and services such as mobile applications and online advertising services.
4. The Complainant is notably the owner of the following trademark INDEED in India and in different countries worldwide including but not limited to United States of America:
• Indian trademark “Indeed” registered under No. 2044682 on October 27, 2010 duly renewed and covering services in classes 35 & 42
• Indian trademarks ” lfKlG6d» registered under No. 2044681 on October 27, 2010 duly renewed and covering services in classes 35 & 42
• US trademark “Indeed” registered under No. 3141242 on September 12, 2006 and covering services in classes 35 and 42
• US trademark ” iHClGGCl” registered under No. 3984951 on June 28, 2011 and covering services in classes 35 and 42
• US trademark “Indeed” registered under No. 4282756 on January 29, 2013 and covering goods in class 9
In addition, Complainant operates, among others, domain names reflecting its trademarks
• <indeed.com> registered on March 30, 1998
• <indeed.co.in> registered on December 14, 2006
• The Complainant has also several other dedicated country-specific domain names and websites such as Canada <indeed.ca>, Columbia <indeed.com.co>, France <indeed.fr>, Hong Kong <indeed.hk>, Japan <indeed.jp>, New Zealand <indeed.co.nz>, Peru <indeed.com. pe>, Portugal <indeed.com.pt> and <indeed.pt>, Quebec <indeed.quebec>, South Africa <indeed.co.za>, Taiwan <indeed.tw>, Turkey indeed.com.tr>, Ukraine <indeed.com.ua> and United Kingdom <indeed.co.uk> through which it lists specific job opportunities in these markets.
• The Complainant is also the owner of several other domain names containing its registered trademark INDEED viz. <indeed.net>,
<indeed.online>, <indeed.org>, <indeed.career>, <indeed.jobs> and <indeed.ceo>.
5. The Complainant submits that the domain name <indeedjobs.ind.in> reproduces Complainants trademark INDEED in its entirety along with the descriptive word ‘jobs’ as postfix. The addition of the word ‘jobs’ as a suffix to the Complainant’s registered trademark INDEED is incapable of providing the Disputed Domain Name any distinctiveness or reduce its similarity with the Complainant’s INDEED Marks. The word ‘jobs’ informs the consumers of the nature of the services being offered, which in fact are identical to those offered by the Complainant worldwide.
6. The Complainant submits that numerous WIPO decisions have established that the purely descriptive term ‘jobs’ as a suffix to the prior and registered trademark INDEED is not sufficient to avoid confusion between the Disputed Domain Name and the INDEED Marks of the Complainant.
7. The Complainant submits that it has been continuously and extensively using the registered trademark INDEED in commerce since its adoption in 2004 – both internationally as well as in India – and thus its rights in the INDEED Marks are beyond reproach.
8. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has not used, nor made any demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bonafide offering of services or goods. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name is for fraudulent purposes, namely, to reproduce the Complainant so as to direct its traffic to the Respondent’s website, mislead job seekers into purchasing services that are never provided, and acquire their personal information – which in no manner constitutes a bonafide offering of services or goods.
9. The Complainant submits that to the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent has never been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and has never acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the Disputed Domain Name.
10. The Complainant submits that the Respondent neither has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name nor has the Complainant assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred or in any way authorized the Respondent to register or make use of its registered trademark INDEED.
11. The Complainant submits that the inclusion of the words ‘INDEED’ and ‘jobs’ i.e. a word describing the sector in which the Complainant operates and is globally renowned in the Disputed Domain Name amply reflects that the objective of the Respondent is to deceive the public into believing that some association or commercial nexus exists between the Complainant and the Respondent and cash-in on such deception.
12. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name with an intent for commercial gain by misleadingly diverting consumers and/or tarnishing the Complainant’s brand and INDEED Marks, and, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
13. The Complainant submits that the Complainant had been known by its business / corporate / trade name INDEED for much over a decade. The Respondent chose to register the Disputed Domain Name so as to misappropriate the Complainant’s INDEED Marks in a blatant and unauthorised manner.
14. The Complainant submits that the Complainant has acquired noteworthy reputation and significant goodwill in employment industry since 2004 and the Respondent, being in an identical industry and dealing with same or similar services, is bound to have knowledge of the world-renowned repute of the Complainant herein and hence has no cause of adoption of an identical trademark or domain name, except in bad faith and with malafide intention.
The Complainant further submits that, the Disputed Domain Name was registered in July 2018, i.e. post 8 years of filing of trademark applications by Complainant in India for registration of its INDEED Marks and 14 years of the Complainant using its said marks in commerce. The Respondent, therefore, again cannot get away with the accountability of knowledge of the Complainant and its business – and INDEED Marks.
15. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is obviously using the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of illegitimately extracting money and personal information from innocent job seekers, who believe the Respondent to be the Complainant or at least associated with it, and who pay money to Respondentto further job opportunities
The Respondent has not filed any response to the Complaint though they were given an opportunity to do so. Thus the complaint had to be decided based on submissions on record and analyzing whether the Complainant has satisfied the conditions laid down in paragraph 3 of the policy.
6) Discussion and Findings:
The Complainant has produced evidence in the form of website extracts marked as Annexure 3 which mentions that the Complainant provides the world’s largest job site, with over 200 million unique visitors every month from over 60 different countries. The Complainant has supported its statutory rights in the INDEED vide registration details filed as Annexure 6. The trademark INDEED stands registered in India since October 27, 2010. Further, the earliest worldwide registration dates back to September 2006 in United States of America.
The Complainant secured the registrations of the domain names www.indeed.com on March 30, 1998 and www.indeed.co.in on December 14, 2006 which have been substantiated with whois extracts filed as Annexure 7 & Annexure 8 respectively.
The official website of the Complainant is accessible to visitors/customers all across the world including India. The website extracts filed as Annex 3 shows that the Complainant’s trademark INDEED is prominently used on every webpage.
The Complainant has several other dedicated country-specific domain names and websites such as Canada <indeed.ca>, Columbia <indeed.com.co>, France <indeed.fr>, Hong Kong <indeed.hk>, Japan <indeed.jp>, New Zealand <indeed.co.nz>, Peru < indeed, com. pe>, Portugal <indeed.com.pt> and <indeed.pt>, Quebec <indeed.quebec>, South Africa <indeed.co.za>, Taiwan <indeed.tw>, Turkey <indeed.com.tr>, Ukraine <indeed.com.ua> and United Kingdom <indeed.co.uk> which have been substantiated with whois extracts filed as Annexure 9
The Complainant secured the registrations of the several other domain names containing its registered trademark INDEED such as <indeed.net>, <indeed.online>, <indeed.org>, <indeed.career>, <indeed.jobs> and <indeed.ceo which have been substantiated with whois extracts filed as Annexure 10.
The whois extract filed as Annexure 2 shows Akshay Kapoor, Indeed of Bihar as the Registrant organization. Therefore, the said entity/person is rightly pleaded as the Respondent for the present case.
Annexure 11 shows the Respondent’s website at www.indeedjobs.co.in wherein the entity goes by the name Indeed Job. The party claims “Our Career services could be of great help. We make sure that a candidate is trained to an extent that the hirer does not give in second thought before calling it a pick. If you are a professional looking for a career move that would end up being both lucrative and productive, we might be of help.” Therefore, it is clear that the said website is used on commercial scale for sales of goods/services.
Annexure 12 shows that Respondent is contacting users through its email ID email@example.com and conning them into paying money.
A formal letter addressed by the Complainant’s Counsel to the Registrar of the Disputed Domain Name, i.e. GoDaddy.com, LLC filed as Annex 13 shows that the fraudulent use of the Disputed Domain Name was brought to the attention of the Registrar and requested it to take down the website indeedjobs.ind.in. However, as per the averments made, no action seems to have been taken from the Registrar.
Based on the submissions and documents submitted by the Complainant, I now deal with the three requisite conditions laid in paragraph 4 of the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy which is listed below. Further the Respondent has not contested the claims, therefore deemed to have admitted the contentions of the Complainant.
(i) The Registrant’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
It has been established by the Complainant that it has statutory rights, common law rights, and rights on account of prior and longstanding use of the mark INDEED. The Complainant has in support submitted substantial documents. The disputed domain name contains or is identical to the Complainant’s INDEED mark in its entirety. The mark INDEED is being used by the Complainant to identify its business. The INDEED marks have been highly publicized by the Complainant and have earned a considerable reputation in the market. Thus the Respondent appears to have no plausible reason for adoption of an identical mark.
(ii) The Registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;
The Complainant submits that the Respondent neither has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name nor has the Complainant assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred or in any way authorized the Respondent to register or make use of its registered trademark INDEED.
The Complainant has not assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred or in any way authorized the Respondent to register or use its registered trademark INDEED or domain name containing indeed. Further, the Respondent has never used the disputed domain name for legitimate business services. The adoption of an identical or confusingly similar domain name for identical or similar services is clearly to divert internet traffic and to cash-in such deception.
The Respondent has not rebutted the contentions of the Complainant and has not produced any documents or submissions to show his interest in protecting his own rights and interest in the domain name. Further, the Respondent has not used the domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bonafide offer of goods or services.
The above leads to the conclusion that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name ‘www.indeediobs.ind.in ‘.
(iii) The Registrant’s domain name has been registered or is being used in bad
It may be mentioned that since the Respondent did not file any response and rebut the contentions of the Complainant, it is deemed to have admitted the contentions contained in the Complaint. As the Respondent has not established its legitimate rights or interests in the domain name, an adverse inference as to their adoption of domain name has to be drawn. Further the Respondent deliberately provided an incomplete address to hide its identity and with an intention to monetize the domain name by parking the domain to operate pay-per-click links.
Based on the documents filed by the Complainant, it can be concluded that the domain name/mark INDEED is identified with the Complainant’s name, mark and services, therefore its adoption by the Respondent shows ‘opportunistic bad faith’.
In my view, the Complainant has satisfied all the three requisite conditions laid down in paragraph 4 of the INDRP policy. In accordance with the Policy and Rules, it is directed that the disputed domain name <WWW.INDEEDJOBS.IND.IN> be transferred to the Complainant.
January 5, 2019
- .IN Domain Name Lens.in registration cancelled under INDRP proceedings
- Rollsroycemotors.in transferred away in INDRP
- Domain Dispute filed against ePolicyBazaar.in under INDRP
- INDRP/1090 – Disputed Domain Name Decision: brooksrunning.co.in (Transfer)
- INDRP/1101 – Disputed Domain Name Decision: Skoda.in (Transfer)