WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Postman Inc. (formerly Postdot Technologies, Inc.) v. Levon Terteryan Case No. D2018-2014 1. The Parties

Complainant is Postman Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America, represented by LegalForce R.A.P.C., United States of America.

Respondent is Levon Terteryan of Austin, Texas, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Regtime Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 4, 2018. On September 5, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 6, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On September 7, 2018 the Center sent an email to the Parties in English and Russian in regard to the language of the proceedings. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 12, 2018 and requested English to be the language of the proceedings. The Respondent sent informal email communications to the Center on September 15, 2018, September 23, 2018 and September 28, 2018.

The Center verified that the 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 28, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 18, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center informed the Parties about the commencement of panel appointment process on October 19, 2018. The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on October 24, 2018. 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

Complainant sells “computer and cloud-computing software for developing, designing, visualizing, implementing, testing, adapting, monitoring and managing Application Programming Interfaces [API] and computer software development tools.” Complainant has used the marks POSTMAN and POSTMAN COLLECTIONS for these goods and services since 2012. In 2018, Complainant filed applications to register these marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Annexed to the Complaint are various examples of unsolicited press coverage concerning Complainant’s POSTMAN and POSTMAN COLLECTIONS goods and services. According to Complainant, it has more than 5 million users or developers for its products and services, including more than 100,000 companies that use Complainant’s POSTMAN software.

The Domain Name was registered on November 23, 2017. The Domain Name resolves to a website featuring the banner: “Biggest Library of Ready-made API Collections for Postman”. Below this banner, the site states: “Find hundreds of API collections that you can import to your Postman app with 1 click”. Respondent’s website also bears a hyperlink to another website allegedly operated by Respondent, at which latter site Respondent offers for sale various products and services which, according to Complainant, are in direct competition with Complainant’s POSTMAN goods and services.

On December 7, 2017, two weeks after registering the Domain Name, Respondent approached Complainant with a proposal for a “referral partnership” with Complainant. On December 20, 2017, Complainant advised Respondent that it was concerned about Respondent featuring Complainant’s intellectual property on Respondent’s website. That day, Respondent told Complainant that he had launched the website accessible via the Domain Name. Complainant objected to the website that day, and asked that certain content and logos be removed from the site. According to Complainant, Respondent promi