Complainant –  Indeed, Inc.

Respondent – Deepak Singh

Disputed Domain –

Decision – is awarded to Indeed, Inc.

Case Summary:


In the given dispute the complainant was incorporated as “Indeed, Inc“.The Complainant is the world’s largest job site with over 200million unique visitors every month from over 60 different countries. The complainant helps companies of all sizes hire employees and helps job seekers find employment opportunities.

The Complainant owns several TLDs like,,,,,,, etc. The complainant has submitted that it owns and has used the brand and trademark INDEED and variations thereof for over a decade with regard to its job websites and search engines,as well as related goods and services such as mobile applications and online advertising services.

The complainant owns both the trademarks INDEED and indeed in respect of classed 09,35 and 42, and dating back to September 12, 2006 in the U.S, and October 27, 2010, in India. The complainant has further mentioned that its trademarks are duly renewed.


On April 12, 2018, NIXI forwarded the softcopy of the complaint, along with the annexures as filled by the complainant to the respondent email.

On April 17, 2018, NIXI informed the Arbitrator vide email that service of the hard copies of the domain complaint and Annexures sent to the Respondent’s address provided in the WHOIS details of the disputed domain had failed. But, the soft copy of the complaint sent to the Respondent vide email, had not bounced back.

There is no response from the respondent, as per rule 2(a)(II) of the INDRP rules the tribunal should take a decision on basis of the material facts and evidences on record.

In order to win the domain from the respondent in an INDRP dispute, The complainant must prove all three following grounds:

1)Registrant’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.

It can be clearly observed that the disputed domain name incorporates the registered trademark of the complainant ‘INDDED’ along with the descriptive suffix ‘JOB’.Hence proved that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s INDEED trademarks.

2)The registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of domain name.

The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is for fraudulent purposes, namely to imitate the Complainant, deceive job seekers into purchasing their services, which are then never provided, and acquire their personal information. Hence the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

3)Registrant’s domain has been registered or being used in bad faith.

Finally, the Tribunal finds the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.


Honorable Arbitrator Lucy Rana taken the decision as the “complainant has succeeded in its complaint”.The arbitrator has quoted the below reason:

Based upon the facts and circumstances and futher evidences as available on the record,the Complainant has statutory and proprietary rights over the trade mark ‘INDEED’.

Please read the further details about the dispute”

Access additional articles on INDRP @ INDRP Knowledge Base

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of and does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *