HDR Global Trading Limited v. Darnell K. Parker
Claim Number: FA2112001976585
Complainant is HDR Global Trading Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Mary D. Hallerman of SNELL & WILMER L.L.P, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Darnell K. Parker (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bitmex-vip.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 9, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 9, 2021.
On December 9, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bitmex-vip.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 December 13, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 3, 2022 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@bitmex-vip.com. Also on December 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 January 5, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <bitmex-vip.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITMEX mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <bitmex-vip.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <bitmex-vip.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant is a cryptocurrency exchange provider, and holds a registration for the BITMEX mark with multiple trademark agencies, including the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 016462327, registered November 8, 2017).
Respondent registered the <bitmex-vip.com> domain name on November 4, 2021, and uses it to pass off as Complainant and phish for user information.
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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the BITMEX mark through its registration of the mark with the multiple trademark agencies, including the EUIPO. See Alibaba Group Holding Limited v. YINGFENG WANG, FA 1568531 (Forum Aug. 21, 2014) (“Complainant has rights in the ALIBABA mark under the Policy through registration with trademark authorities in numerous countries around the world.”); see also Lilly A/S v. yiyi chen, FA 1704586 (Forum Jan. 5, 2017) (“Until March 23, 2016, the EUIPO was known as the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market. Registration of a mark with the EUIPO (or any other similar governmental authority) is sufficient to establish rights in the mark.”)
Respondent’s <bitmex-vip.com> domain name uses the BITMEX mark and merely adds “-vip” and the “.com” gTLD. The addition of a generic or descriptive term and a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <bitmex-vip.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITMEX mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”).
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <bitmex-vip.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the BITMEX mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Darnell K. Parker.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name); see also Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the <bitmex-vip.com> domain name for a bona fide offerings of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), using a disputed domain name’s resolving website to pass off as a Complainant and phish for user information is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. 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.”). Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain name’s resolving website, which purports to offer similar cryptocurrency services and solicits users to input personal information. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <bitmex-vip.com> domain name in bad faith for commercial gain. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant and phish for user information constitutes bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent passes off as the complainant and offers online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant’s business). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant also argues that Respondent registered the <bitmex-vip.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BITMEX mark based on Respondent’s use of the BITMEX mark to pass off as Complainant. The Panel agrees and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(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 <bitmex-vip.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: January 6, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page