WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION ZipRecruiter, Inc. v. James Hoe Case No. DNL2019-0008 1. The Parties

The Complainant is ZipRecruiter, Inc. of Santa Monica, California, United States of America (“United States”), represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.

The Respondent is James Hoe of Shanghai, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with SIDN through PDR Ltd. 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 22, 2019. On March 25, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to SIDN a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 26, 2019, SIDN transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Dispute Resolution Regulations for .nl Domain Names (the “Regulations”).

In accordance with the Regulations, articles 5.1 and 16.4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 28, 2019. In accordance with the Regulations, article 7.1, the due date for Response was April 17, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 24, 2019.

The Center appointed Willem J. H. Leppink as the panelist in this matter on April 25, 2019. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panelist has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required to ensure compliance with the Regulations, article 9.2. 4. Factual Background

The Complainant is an American online recruitment company that operates in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The Complainant provides recruitment services to individuals and services for commercial entities.

The Complainant owns various registrations for the ZIPRECRUITER trademark, including inter alia the European Union trademark (word mark) ZIPRECRUITER with registration number 015070873 registered on June 13, 2016, and United States trademark (word mark) ZIPRECRUITER with registration number 3934310 registered on March 22, 2011 (hereinafter referred to together as the “Trademark”).

The Complainant is the owner of various domain names that incorporate the Trademark, including inter alia , , and .

The Respondent registered the Domain Name on August 26, 2014. The Domain Name resolves to a parking page comprising of pay-per-click links to services that compete with the Complainant’s (“the Website”). In addition, it is indicated on the Website that the Domain Name is for sale. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Domain Name is identical to the Trademark as it incorporates the Trademark in its entirety.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has made no attempt to use the Domain Name for any legitimate business purpose. Since its registration, the Domain name has resolved to a pay-per-click parking page with links related to “job posting” and “recruitment”. The Respondent is capitalizing on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant through numerous sponsored advertisements listed on the Website.

The Complainant refers to section 2.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), which states that previous panels have held that “a PPC website does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users.” 1

The Respondent has registered the Domain Name in bad faith. The Respondent registered the Domain Name on the day that the Complainant announced that it had raised USD 64 million in funding. The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and the Trademark.

In addition, the Respondent is using the Domain Name in bad faith. The Respondent likely receives revenue from Internet users being redirected to third-party websites through the Domain Name, at the Complainant’s expense, by taking advantage of the reputation of the Trademark. In e