{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101367", "time_of_filling": "2016-12-14 09:53:59", "domain_names": [ "iupwork.com", "getupworks.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Upwork Inc." ], "complainant_representative": "RiskIQ, Inc", "respondent": [ "Anh Nguyen" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "According to the information provided the Complainant, the world’s largest freelance talent marketplace, relaunched in May 2015 with a new name, Upwork, and a new freelance talent platform, also called Upwork. Upwork, located at , is the world’s largest freelancing website. The website of the Complainant using the domain name was also relaunched in May 2015. The Complainant is headquartered in Mountain View, California, with offices in San Francisco, California, and Oslo, Norway. \r\n\r\nAccording to the public Whois information the date of first registration of the Disputed domain name is 8 November 2016 and the date of first registration of the disputed domain name is 18 October 2016.\r\n\r\nBefore the filing of the complaint, the websites to which the disputed domain names resolved mentioned that the disputed domain names were for sale. After the filing of the complaint the websites mention they are under construction and are “coming soon”. \r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings.\r\n", "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nTHE COMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant the Disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant's UPWORK mark, adding only the letter \"i\" which does not negate the confusing similarity as it simply exploits a typographical error. Similarly, the Disputed domain name simply adds the letter 's' to the mark and combines this typographical error with a generic term that suggests or implies one can acquire the goods or services identified the trademark which follows in a domain name. Accordingly, both Disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the UPWORK trademark in which the Complainant has rights.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed domain names. The Complainant has not authorized or licensed the Respondent to use its trademark UPWORK, and has not consented to use of the mark in the Disputed domain names. Furthermore, based on the Whois records, it is apparent that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain names. The Respondent disrupted the Complainant's business by sending an unsolicited email to a variety of email addresses associated with the Complainant to offer the Disputed domain name for sale, and threatening that if not contacted soon the disputed domain name will be sold. Both Disputed domain names advertise directly that offers to buy the Disputed domain names should be sent to the same account. This shows that the email sent to the Complainant was likely sent by the Respondent or its authorized agent. The Respondent does not use the Disputed domain names to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. \r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant the Disputed domain names are registered and used in bad faith. The Respondent sent an unsolicited mass email to numerous contacts at the Complainant threatening that if the Complainant does not contact the Respondent with an offer to buy one of the Disputed domain names, , the domain name would be sold to a third-party. Under the circumstances, this constitutes evidence that the Respondent knew of the Complainant's rights when the Disputed domain names were registered and is using them to try and profit by expressly (as evidenced by the email sent to the Complainant) or at least implicitly (as advertised on the Disputed domain names) threatening that the Disputed domain names will be sold to the highest bidder. The fact that the Respondent is entertaining offers on both of the Disputed domain names indicates it is looking to profit from the highest bidder and registered them to profit, not just recoup its out-of-pocket costs associated with the registrations. \r\n\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nAccording to the Respondent Upwork might be trademark of the Complainant. The Respondent asserts that Upwork.com and and are two very different things.\r\n\r\nIn the case of the Disputed domain name :\r\n\r\n- iUpWork is \"i Up Work\". It's different with \"Upwork\".\r\n\r\n- \"Up\" is a verb (meaning lift, increase, rise), \"Work\" is a noun (meaning job, task) and \"i\" is a popular letter in domain name industry. \r\n\r\n- A lot of domain names begin with \"i\" and end with \"Work\".\r\n\r\nIn the case of the Disputed domain name :\r\n\r\n- GetupWorkS is \"Getup WorkS\". It's different with \"Upwork\".\r\n\r\n- \"Getup\" is a noun (meaning wakening), \"Works\" is a plural noun (with \"S\" in the end). It's meaning \"Getup! and Works\".\r\n- A lot of domain names begin with \"Getup\" and end with \"WorkS\"\r\n\r\nAccording to the Respondent there are many examples of same domain names.\r\n", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the Disputed domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy).", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed domain Names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy).", "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy).", "procedural_factors": "The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Dinant T.L. Oosterbaan" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-01-17 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Complainant is the owner of the following trademark: \r\n\r\nBenelux wordmark UPWORK number 0974795, filed on 25 February 2015, registered on 18 May 2015.\r\n\r\nIceland wordmark UPWORK number V0093956, filed on 26 August 2014, registered on 29 May 2015.", "decision_domains": { "IUPWORK.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "GETUPWORKS.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }