Nasdaq, Inc. v. Join Freece
Claim Number: FA2108001959147
Complainant is Nasdaq, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Monica Riva Talley of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Join Freece (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <easynasdaq.com>, registered with Amazon Registrar, Inc..
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 11, 2021; the Forum received payment on August 11, 2021.
On August 12, 2021, Amazon Registrar, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <easynasdaq.com> domain name is registered with Amazon Registrar, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Amazon Registrar, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Amazon Registrar, Inc. registration agreement 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 13, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 2, 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@easynasdaq.com. Also on August 13, 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 7, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, NASDAQ, Inc., is a global financial technology, trading, and information services provider to the world’s capital markets.
Complainant maintains registrations in its NASDAQ mark with many authorities worldwide, including in China and with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
The at-issue domain name, <easynasdaq.com>, is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s NASDAQ mark because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s NASDAQ mark while adding in an additional term, “easy” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to form a domain name.
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <easynasdaq.com> because Respondent is not commonly known by the <easynasdaq.com> domain name nor has Respondent been authorized to use Complainant’s NASDAQ mark. Respondent is not using the <easynasdaq.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent is phishing personal and financial information and providing misleading information on its website about cryptocurrency.
Respondent registered and uses the <easynasdaq.com> domain name in bad faith because of Respondent’s activities of luring users into providing personal information. Further bad faith is indicated through Respondent’s use of a privacy service when registering the domain name. Respondent acted with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the NASDAQ mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the NASDAQ mark.
Complainant’s rights in the NASDAQ mark existed prior to Respondent’s registration of the at-issue domain name.
Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name pass itself off as Complainant and address a website that engages in a phishing scheme.
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”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO trademark registration for the NASDAQ mark, as well as it other national registrations for NASDAQ worldwide, demonstrates Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(I). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Muhammad Shahzad, FA 1787738 (Forum June 19, 2018) (“Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is sufficient to demonstrate rights to a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
The at-issue domain name consists of Complainant’s NASDAQ trademark prefixed by the generic term “easy,” with all followed by the top level domain name “.com.” The differences between the at-issue <easynasdaq.com> domain name and Complainant’s NASDAQ trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) Respondent’s <easynasdaq.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NASDAQ trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also, The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Absent contrary evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances, or other evidence supporting a finding of Respondent’s having rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and “[p]anels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.”).
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Join Freece” and there is no evidence in the record which suggest that the Respondent is known by the at-issue domain name. Therefore, the Panel concludes that under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Furthermore, Respondent’s <easynasdaq.com> domain name has been used to address a website that misleads and diverts consumers of stock trading services and related information to Respondent’s <easynasdaq.com> website. Respondent’s confusingly similar domain name gives internet users the false impression that Complainant is associated with, or sponsored by, the at-issue domain name and its website, when it is not. Respondent exploits the confusion by employing its <easynasdaq.com> website to improperly solicit monetary deposits and personal information from website visitors who mistakenly believe they are dealing with Complainant. Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name to phish for personal information and funds indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See United States Postal Service v. Kehinde Okunola / Genuine ICT Centre, FA 1785420 (Forum June 6, 2018) (“Respondent uses the <uspscouriers.com> domain name both to sell services competing with the business of Complainant and to phish for personal identification information from Internet users. Neither of these uses of the domain name constitutes a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) such as would confirm in Respondent rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name as provided in those subsections of the Policy.”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
Respondent’s <easynasdaq.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present which allow the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First, Respondent registered and uses the confusingly similar at-issue domain name to trick internet users into believing that <easynasdaq.com> is affiliated with Complainant, when it is not. Such use is disruptive to Complainant’s business as Respondent appears to offer a commercial platform that unfairly competes with Complainant via that at-issue domain name. Respondent’s use of the domain name thus shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the <easynasdaq.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, FA1762308 (Forum Jan. 9, 2018) (Finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer competing loan services disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also, ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (Finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business by diverting internet users from Complainant’s website to Respondent’s website where it offered competing printer products).
Next, Respondent uses the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Respondent’s use of the domain name to pose as Complainant and then phish for the personal information and funds of third-parties visiting Respondent’s <easynasdaq.com> website shows Respondent’s bad faith under the Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Mihael, FA 605221 (Forum Jan. 16, 2006) (“Complainant asserts,…that soon after the disputed domain name was registered, Respondent arranged for it to resolve to a web site closely resembling a legitimate site of Complainant, called a ‘doppelganger’ (for double or duplicate) page, the purpose of which is to deceive Complainant’s customers into providing to Respondent their login identification, social security numbers, and/or account information and Personal Identification Numbers…. The Panel finds that Respondent’s behavior, as alleged, constitutes bad faith registration and use of the subject domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also, Zoetis Inc. and Zoetis Services LLC v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA1506001623601 (Forum July 14, 2015) (“Respondent’s attempt to use the <zoietis.com> domain name to phish for personal information in fraudulent emails also constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the NASDAQ mark when it registered <easynasdaq.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of the domain name and relevant website as discussed elsewhere herein. Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar <easynasdaq.com> domain name with prior knowledge of Complainant’s rights in such domain name further shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <easynasdaq.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: September 8, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page