{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106657", "time_of_filling": "2024-07-16 09:45:02", "domain_names": [ "gapfactoryincjobs.store", " gapjob.store", "gapfactoryjob.store", "gapfactoryjobs.store", "gapincjob.store", "gapincjobs.store", "gapjobs.store" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "The Gap, Inc.", "GAP (APPAREL), LLC" ], "complainant_representative": "Convey srl", "respondent": [ "gadres asawe", "Michael Shelling", "makampo huma", "gremin Young", "creg cox", "Ron Shachar", "Michael Shachar" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Key aspects of the Complainants’ contentions are summarized below.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Complainants’ Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Gap, Inc., founded in 1969 by Donald and Doris F. Fisher, is headquartered in San Francisco, California. By 1976, the company had grown to 25 stores and went public with an initial stock offering of 1.2 million shares at $18 per share. The Gap, Inc. operates four primary divisions: Gap, Banana Republic, Old Navy, and Athleta. It is the largest specialty retailer in the United States and ranks third globally in total locations, behind Inditex Group and H&M. As of early 2023, The Gap, Inc. employed approximately 95,000 people.<\/p>\n

Gap (ITM) Inc. and Gap (Apparel), LLC own numerous GAP formative trademarks worldwide for many years, and are part of the The Gap, Inc. group.<\/p>\n

Over the years, The Gap Inc. has heavily invested in protecting and promoting its brands. Notable moments include Michael J. Fox wearing the Gap Pocket-T in Back to the Future in 1985, supermodels featuring Gap clothing on the cover of Vogue's 100th-anniversary issue in 1992, Sharon Stone wearing a GAP mock turtleneck at the 1996 Academy Awards, and Madonna and Missy Elliot promoting Gap's Fall collection in 2003. Over decades, the Complainants have built substantial goodwill and prestige for its GAP trademark as demonstrated by the GAP Instagram page with 3.1 million followers and some 48,301,071 mentions.<\/p>\n

Registration of the disputed domain names<\/strong><\/p>\n

According to the registrar verifications included with the Complaint, the disputed domain names were registered on the following dates:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

gapfactoryincjobs.store<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2024-04-10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

gapjob.store<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2024-03-05<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

gapfactoryjob.store<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2024-04-08<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

gapfactoryjobs.store<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2024-04-07<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

gapincjob.store<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2024-04-03<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

gapincjobs.store<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2024-03-24<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

gapjobs.store<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2024-03-04<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Phishing Emails<\/strong><\/p>\n

On April 21, 2024, an email originating from info@gapjob.store<\/a> was sent, purporting to be from a Gap Inc Human Resources Manager and including the following text excerpt:<\/p>\n

“I saw your profile on indeed.com and I was impressed by your experience.<\/em><\/p>\n

Here at Gap Inc, we are always looking to grow our teams with talented people and achieve great things together.<\/em><\/p>\n

I think that your expertise in Graphics Design would help us in the project we’re working on. I’d love to tell you more about the opening position and learn a few things about you as well…”<\/em><\/p>\n

On April 23, 2024, an email originating from info@gapfactoryjobs.store<\/a> was sent, purporting to be from a different Gap Inc Human Resources manager to the April 21 email mentioned above and including the following text excerpt:<\/p>\n

“Thank you for your response to the Remote graphic designer role at Gap Inc.<\/em><\/p>\n

I would like to invite you for an instant text based interview via Skype, the interview will last approximately 30 minutes in total…”<\/em><\/p>\n

Notably, both afore-mentioned emails include in the email signature the following details about the Complainants’ global headquarters, “Gap Inc, Human Resources Manager, 2 Folsom St, San Francisco, CA, 94105”.<\/p>\n

Cease and Desist Letter<\/strong><\/p>\n

When the Complainants became aware of the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names, they instructed their representative to send the Respondent a cease-and-desist letter to notify him of the infringement of the Complainants’ trademark rights, requesting the immediate cease of any use and the transfer of the disputed domain names. Accordingly, a cease and desist letter was sent on June 28, 2024, to the e-mail indicated in the Whois of the disputed domain names. Following the cease-and-desist letter, the e-mail account addresses related to the disputed domain names were deactivated, but the disputed domain names were not transferred to the Complainants.<\/p>\n

Consolidation Request<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainants contend that the disputed domain names should be consolidated into a single complaint because they are subject to common control for the following reasons: 1) use of the GAP trademark accompanied by other generic\/descriptive terms: “job”, “inc” and “factory“, meaning that they are referring to the same business of the Complainants 2) same registrar and hosting provider based in the United States., namely, NAMECHEAP INC.  3) the disputed domain names were registered during March and April of 2024.<\/p>\n

First UDRP Element - disputed domain name is Confusingly Similar to the Complainant’s Trademark<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainants assert that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark GAP by incorporating the entire trademark GAP, along with generic commercial terms such as “job”, “factory” and “inc”.  The combination of GAP with generic but related terms could suggest improperly to consumers that the disputed domain names and corresponding web sites might be directly controlled or authorized by the Complainants.<\/p>\n

Further, the Complainants contend that the addition of the gTLD “.store” is merely instrumental to use in the Internet and does not affect the confusing similarity of the disputed domain names to the Complainants’ trademarks.<\/p>\n

Second UDRP Element – The Respondent has no Rights or Legitimate Interests in the disputed domain names<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainants assert that the Respondent is not a licensee, authorized agent, or related in any way to the Complainant, nor is authorized in any way to use the Complainants’ trademarks or to register or use the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n

The Complainants also claim that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names as an individual, business, or other organization and their family names do not correspond to GAP or the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n

The Complainants contend there is no evidence of demonstrable preparations to use nor actual use of the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, the Respondent has unlawfully used the disputed domain names to impersonate an employee of the Complainants’ human resources team, by sending fraudulent e-mails from the addresses info@gapjob.store and info@gapfactoryincjobs.store. The Respondent has attempted to obtain sensitive information from individuals interested in applying for jobs at the Complainants' company. According to the Complainants, this deceptive conduct aims to exploit the GAP trademark reputation, disrupt its business, and illegitimately trade on its fame for commercial gain, while misleading the public into believing there is a relationship or affiliation with the Complainants.<\/p>\n

Further, the Complainants assert the Respondent has concealed their identity in the WHOIS records.<\/p>\n

The Complainants also contend that the Respondent’s wilful conduct demonstrates the Respondent did not intend to use the disputed domain names in connection with any legitimate purpose.<\/p>\n

Third UDRP Element – The disputed domain names were Registered and are Being Used in Bad Faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainants assert that their GAP trademarks enjoy worldwide reputation since many years, including the US where the Respondent is located. Considering the advertising and sales under the Complainants’ trademarks, the Complainants claim the Respondent could not have ignored the existence of the Complainants’ trademarks, at time of the registration of the disputed domain names, with which they are confusingly similar.<\/p>\n

According to the Complainants, the disputed domain names currently resolve to inactive websites.<\/p>\n

The Complainants state that the Respondent has used the disputed domain names and appropriated the GAP trademarks to impersonate an employee of the Complainants, as part of a phishing scheme involving the sending of fraudulent e-mails to obtain sensitive information and documents from recipients. The Complainants claim such use of the disputed domain names constitutes improper impersonation of the Complainants for commercial gain, with such conduct considered bad faith under the Policy.<\/p>\n

The Complainants conclude that the facts and evidence of the case demonstrate that the disputed domain names were both registered and used in bad faith.<\/p>\n

The above summarized facts and arguments asserted by the Complainants are not contested by the Respondent because no Response was filed.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

The Complainants contend that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it. <\/p>\n

The Complainants’ contentions are summarized above.<\/p>\n

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainants have, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "

The Complainants have, 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).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "

The Complainants have, 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).<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Claire Kowarsky" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-08-18 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainants seek to rely on the following registered trademarks:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Mark<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Owner<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Territory<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Registration No.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Application Date<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Registration Date<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Classes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

GAP<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gap (ITM) Inc.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

European Union<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

000027110<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

April 1, 1996<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

October 1, 1999<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18, 25, 35<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

GAP<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gap (ITM) Inc.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

European Union<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

011331345<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

November 8, 2012<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

April 15, 2013<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

39, 41, 42, 45<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

GAP<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gap (ITM) Inc.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

Malaysia<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

91004506<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

August 8, 1991<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

August 8, 1991<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

18<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

GAP<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gap (ITM) Inc.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Malaysia<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

94004725<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 June 10, 1994<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

June 10, 1994<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

GAP<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gap (Apparel), LLC<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

US<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

74239382<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

January 22, 1992<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

January 12, 1993<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 25, 35<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

GAP<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gap (Apparel), LLC<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

US<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

88707374<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

November 26, 2019<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

December 07, 2021<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

35<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Further, the Complainants operate GAP related business using the domain names <gapinc.com> registered since 1998, and <gap.com>, registered since 1993.   <\/p>", "decision_domains": { "gapfactoryincjobs.store": "TRANSFERRED", " gapjob.store": "TRANSFERRED", "gapfactoryjob.store": "TRANSFERRED", "gapfactoryjobs.store": "TRANSFERRED", "gapincjob.store": "TRANSFERRED", "gapincjobs.store": "TRANSFERRED", "gapjobs.store": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }