Coinbase, Inc. v. Gabriel Silva / Joao Rodrigo / andre kaique / tiago souza / Gustavo Nunes / pedro silva souza / fabio marionete / tiago salvador / Bruno Magalhaes / Joao Darc
Claim Number: FA2108001958521
Complainant is Coinbase, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Stephanie H. Bald of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Gabriel Silva / Joao Rodrigo / andre kaique / tiago souza / Gustavo Nunes / pedro silva souza / fabio marionete / tiago salvador / Bruno Magalhaes / Joao Darc (“Respondent”), International.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <coinbse.com>, <cinbase.com>, <coibbase.com>, <coinnbase.com>, <coinbvase.com>, <xn--oinbase-44a.name>, <xn--coinbse-30c.net>, <xn--coinbas-z8a.net>, <xn--cinbase-d5b.net>, <xn--conbase-ww4c.net>, <xn--coinbas-xya.net>, <xn--coinbse-d4a.net>, <xn--coinbas-xs4c.name>, and <conibase.pro> (collectively “Domain Names”), registered with NameCheap, Inc. and Dynadot, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 6, 2021; the Forum received payment on August 6, 2021.
On August 10, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. and Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the<coinbse.com>, <cinbase.com>, <coibbase.com>, <coinnbase.com>, <coinbvase.com>, <xn--oinbase-44a.name>, <xn--coinbse-30c.net>, <xn--coinbas-z8a.net>, <xn--cinbase-d5b.net>, <xn--conbase-ww4c.net>, <xn--coinbas-xya.net>, <xn--coinbse-d4a.net>, <xn--coinbas-xs4c.name>, and <conibase.pro> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc. and Dynadot, LLC have verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. and Dynadot, LLC registration agreements and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On August 16, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 7, 2021 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@coinbse.com, postmaster@cinbase.com, postmaster@coibbase.com, postmaster@coinnbase.com, postmaster@coinbvase.com, postmaster@xn--oinbase-44a.name, postmaster@xn--coinbse-30c.net, postmaster@ xn--coinbse-d4a.net, postmaster@xn--cinbase-d5b.net, postmaster@ xn--coinbas-z8a.net, postmaster@xn--conbase-ww4c.net, postmaster@ xn--coinbas-xya.net, postmaster@xn--coinbas-xs4c.name and postmaster@conibase.pro. Also on August 16, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 13, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which are listed as the registrants of the Domain Names are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under 10 aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
Complainant has provided detailed evidence of the connections between each of the Domain Names and in particular that: 1) the Domain Names are all similar variants of Complainant’s COINBASE mark being a close misspelling or typosquatted version of the COINBASE mark, often through the use of a diacritic 2) all the Domain Names save <coinbse.com> are registered with the same registrar (Namecheap) and <coinbse.com> is hosted on the same server as a number of the other Domain Names 3) eight of the Domain Names (all of the Domain Names other than <coinnbase.com>, <coinbvase.com>, <xn--coinbse-30c.net>. <xn--coinbas-xya.net>, <xn--conbase-ww4c.net> and <xn--coinbas-xs4c.name> (the “inactive Domain Names”) resolve or have resolved to active websites (“Respondent’s Websites”). The Respondent’s Websites are best characterized as phishing websites, that impersonate Complainant (including in some cases reproducing Complainant’s blue logo) for the purpose of encouraging users to provide their account information and passwords to the Respondent by misleading them into thinking that they are signing up or logging into an official website operated by Complainant 4) the inactive Domain Names, though unused, are hosted on the same servers used by the remaining Domain Names. This evidence, in the Panel’s opinion, strongly suggests that the Domain Names are owned/controlled by a single Respondent; were the named Respondents unrelated, it would be unlikely that multiple unconnected entities would register very similar domain names with (in most cases) the same registrar, host them at the same ISP address and, with respect of 8 of the Domain Names, point them to websites operating on similar business models.
In light of these contentions, which none of the identified Respondents deny, the Panel concludes that, on the balance of probabilities, the Domain Names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases. Hereafter the single Respondent will be referred to as “Respondent” for this Decision.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAME
The domain names <ćoinbase.name>, <coinbȧse.net>, <coinbasė.net>, <cơinbase.net>, <coịnbase.net>, <coinbasë.net>, <coinbăse.net>, and <coinbasẹ.name> are internationalized domain names (“IDN”) with the PUNYCODE translations [<xn--oinbase-44a.name>], [<xn--coinbse-30c.net>], [<xn--coinbas-z8a.net>], [<xn--cinbase-d5b.net>], [<xn--conbase-ww4c.net>], [<xn--coinbas-xya.net>], [<xn--coinbse-d4a.net>], and [<xn--coinbas-xs4c.name>]. An IDN is a domain name that contains non-traditional characters, such as letters with diacritics or other non-ASCII characters. In order to display characters or symbols in a domain name, the terms of the domain name are encoded into a scheme such as PUNYCODE. For Complainant to display the <ćoinbase.name>, <coinbȧse.net>, <coinbasė.net>, <cơinbase.net>, <coịnbase.net>, <coinbasë.net>, <coinbăse.net>, and <coinbasẹ.name> domain names, it first had to encode it into the [<xn--oinbase-44a.name>], [<xn--coinbse-30c.net>], [<xn--coinbas-z8a.net>], [<xn--cinbase-d5b.net>], [<xn--conbase-ww4c.net>], [<xn--coinbas-xya.net>], [<xn--coinbse-d4a.net>], and [<xn--coinbas-xs4c.name>] domain names.
In the past, panels have found IDNs and their PUNYCODE translations to be equivalent. See Damien Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding an internationalized domain name, <têtu.com>, and its PUNYCODE translation, <xn--ttu-fma.com>, to be one and the same under the Policy); see also Württembergische Versicherung AG v. Emir Ulu, D2006-0278 (WIPO May 4, 2006) (finding that the <xn--wrttembergische-versicherung-16c.com> should be considered as equivalent to the <württembergische-versicherung.com> domain name, based on previous panel decisions recognizing the relevance of I-nav software for translating German letters such as “ä” or “ü” into codes such as <xn--[name]-16c> and similar); see also Fujitsu Ltd. v. tete and Lianqiu Li, D2006-0885 (WIPO Oct. 12, 2006) (finding the <xn--zqsv0e014e.com> domain name to be an exact reproduction of the complainant’s Chinese trademark in a domain name). Thus the Panel finds that the [<xn--oinbase-44a.name>], [<xn--coinbse-30c.net>], [<xn--coinbas-z8a.net>], [<xn--cinbase-d5b.net>], [<xn--conbase-ww4c.net>], [<xn--coinbas-xya.net>], [<xn--coinbse-d4a.net>], and [<xn--coinbas-xs4c.name>] domain names are the same as <ćoinbase.name>, <coinbȧse.net>, <coinbasė.net>, <cơinbase.net>, <coịnbase.net>, <coinbasë.net>, <coinbăse.net>, and <coinbasẹ.name> for the purpose of this proceeding.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a leading provider of end-to-end financial infrastructure and technology for the crypto economy. Complainant has rights in the COINBASE mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,567,878, registered July 15, 2014). Respondent’s <coinbse.com>, <cinbase.com>, <coibbase.com>, <coinnbase.com>, <coinbvase.com>, <xn--oinbase-44a.name>, <xn--coinbse-30c.net>, <xn--coinbas-z8a.net>, <xn--cinbase-d5b.net>, <xn--conbase-ww4c.net>, <xn--coinbas-xya.net>, <xn--coinbse-d4a.net>, <xn--coinbas-xs4c.name>, and <conibase.pro> domain names are confusingly similar or identical to Complainant’s COINBASE mark as <coinbse.com>, <cinbase.com>, <coibbase.com>, <coinnbase.com>, <coinbvase.com> and <conibase.pro> are misspelled and typosquatted versions of Complainant’s mark, while the remaining Domain Names are a misspelling of Complainant’s mark that substitutes one letter for an internationalized version of the same letter.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <coinbse.com>, <cinbase.com>, <coibbase.com>, <coinnbase.com>, <coinbvase.com>, <xn--oinbase-44a.name>, <xn--coinbse-30c.net>, <xn--coinbas-z8a.net>, <xn--cinbase-d5b.net>, <xn--conbase-ww4c.net>, <xn--coinbas-xya.net>, <xn--coinbse-d4a.net>, <xn--coinbas-xs4c.name>, and <conibase.pro> domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the COINBASE mark. Respondent has not used the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent used or uses 8 or them to pass off as Complainant to phish for login credentials while with respect to the inactive Domain Names, Respondent has not made any demonstrable preparations to use them at all.
Respondent registered and uses the <coinbse.com>, <cinbase.com>, <coibbase.com>, <coinnbase.com>, <coinbvase.com>, <xn--oinbase-44a.name>, <xn--coinbse-30c.net>, <xn--coinbas-z8a.net>, <xn--cinbase-d5b.net>, <xn--conbase-ww4c.net>, <xn--coinbas-xya.net>, <xn--coinbse-d4a.net>, <xn--coinbas-xs4c.name>, and <conibase.pro> domain names in bad faith. Respondent engages in a pattern of bad faith registration. Respondent also used or uses 8 of the Domain Names to pass off as Complainant to phish for login credentials and thus disrupt Complainant’s business. Respondent fails to make active use of the inactive Domain Names and has engaged in typosquatting. Finally, Respondent registered the Domain Names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights to the COINBASE mark based on the fame of Complainant’s mark and the content of the Respondent’s Websites.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the COINBASE mark. Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the COINBASE mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Names in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant has rights in the COINBASE mark based upon registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,567,878, registered July 15, 2014). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, “Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”).
The <coinbse.com>, <cinbase.com>, <coibbase.com>, <coinnbase.com>, <coinbvase.com> and <conibase.pro> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s COINBASE mark as consist of minor misspellings (usually through the removal or addition of a letter) of the COINBASE mark along with the addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). The purposeful misspelling of a mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Morgan Stanley v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1783121 (Forum June 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s <morganstanle.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark as it wholly incorporates the mark, but for the omission of the letter ‘y’ and spacing within the mark, and appends the ‘.com’ gTLD.”); see also OpenTable, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1626187 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015 (“Respondent’s <oipentable.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the OPENTABLE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the disputed domain merely adds the letter ‘i’ … ”)
The <xn--oinbase-44a.name>, <xn--coinbse-30c.net>, <xn--coinbas-z8a.net>, <xn--cinbase-d5b.net>, <xn--conbase-ww4c.net>, <xn--coinbas-xya.net>, <xn--coinbse-d4a.net>, <xn--coinbas-xs4c.name> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s COINBASE mark as they use Punycode to create internationalized domain names which are virtually identical to the COINBASE mark, adding only diacritics and a gTLD to the otherwise wholly incorporated mark. A Punycode iteration of an IDN may be confusingly similar to a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Harrington, FA1305319 (Forum Mar. 16, 2010) (finding <bıng.com> [xn--bng-jua.com] confusingly similar to BING and noting, “The Panel finds that exchanging one letter for another in the disputed domain name fails to prevent confusing similarity according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), especially when the disputed domain name remains visually similar to Complainant’s mark”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the COINBASE mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information of record lists “Gabriel Silva / Joao Rodrigo / andre kaique / tiago souza / Gustavo Nunes / pedro silva souza / fabio marionete / tiago salvador / Bruno Magalhaes / Joao Darc” as the registrants of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Each of the Domain Names other than the inactive Domain Names (which, absent other evidence can be presumed to be inactive pending use for a similar purpose) resolves or, as is clear from the uncontradicted evidence in the Complaint, has resolved one of the Respondent’s Websites. These websites, give the impression that they are either affiliated with or are actually Complainant’s official website. Furthermore each of the Respondent’s Websites include a login/sign-up feature that could result in Complainant’s customers, thinking they were logging into an official site of the Complainant, providing Respondent with their private login details or other personal information. Such conduct is best characterized as “phishing”. Respondent’s use of the Domain Names to impersonate Complainant for the purpose of engaging in a phishing scheme to acquire account details or personal and confidential information is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Caroline Alves Maia, FA 1796113 (Forum Aug. 6, 2018) (finding the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the domain name because it used the name to resolve to a website virtually identical to the complainant’s to prompt users to enter their login information so that the respondent may gain access to that customer’s cryptocurrency account); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. ruth weinstein, FA 1770352 (Forum Mar. 7, 2018) (“Use of a disputed domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as a complainant and to conduct a phishing scheme is indicative of a failure to use said domain name in connection with a bona fide offer of goods and services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or otherwise fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”);
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds that, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Names Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s COINBASE mark since each of the Respondent’s Websites pass themself off as websites connected to Complainant and make reference to Complainant. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register 14 domain names that are confusingly similar to the COINBASE mark and use 8 of them to resolve to websites passing themselves off as Complainant other than to take advantage of Complainant’s reputation in the COINBASE mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel notes that the <coinbse.com> Domain Name was registered in 2013 prior to the date at which Complainant registered the COINBASE Mark, however Complainant first used the COINBASE Mark in 2012 and provides persuasive evidence that as of the date of registration it had developed a considerable reputation in the (then unregistered) COINBASE Mark. In any event, Complainant puts on evidence that the <coinbse.com> Domain Name was originally registered by a third party and transferred to Respondent after May 2014. That, and the use to which the <coinbse.com> Domain Name has been put, establishes that the Respondent acquired the <coinbse.com> Domain Name in awareness of the COINBASE Mark.
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith as Respondent uses (or in the case of inactive Domain Names holds the domain names pending use) the Domain Names to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme whereby Respondent seeks to acquire personal or account information from customers of the Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Google Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1506001622862 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent’s apparent use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a ‘phishing’ scheme further established its bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <coinbse.com>, <cinbase.com>, <coibbase.com>, <coinnbase.com>, <coinbvase.com>, <xn--oinbase-44a.name>, <xn--coinbse-30c.net>, <xn--coinbas-z8a.net>, <xn--cinbase-d5b.net>, <xn--conbase-ww4c.net>, <xn--coinbas-xya.net>, <xn--coinbse-d4a.net >, <xn--coinbas-xs4c.name>, and <conibase.pro> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: September 20, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page