E*Trade Financial Holdings, LLC v. Shadrack Ibiso
Claim Number: FA2206002002397
Complainant is E*Trade Financial Holdings, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Shadrack Ibiso (“Respondent”), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <etradebitfx.com>, registered with OwnRegistrar, 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 June 29, 2022; the Forum received payment on June 29, 2022.
On June 30, 2022, OwnRegistrar, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <etradebitfx.com> domain name is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. OwnRegistrar, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the OwnRegistrar, 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 June 30, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 20, 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@etradebitfx.com. Also on June 30, 2022, 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 July 26, 2022, 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, E*Trade Financial Holdings, LLC, operates in the financial services industry.
Complainant has rights in the E*TRADE mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <etradebitfx.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s E*TRADE mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety while adding the generic or descriptive terms “bit” and “fx” while eliminating the asterisk and adding the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <etradebitfx.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its E*TRADE mark in the at-issue domain name or otherwise. Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, but instead uses it to pass itself off as Complainant and address a website offering fraudulent services.
Respondent registered and uses the <etradebitfx.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by causing initial interest confusion. Additionally, Respondent capitalizes on confusing similarity for commercial gain. Furthermore, Respondent passes itself off as Complainant while engaging in opportunistic bad faith. Respondent registered the <etradebitfx.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the E*TRADE mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the E*TRADE mark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain names after Complainant acquired rights in the <etradebitfx.com> trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to impersonate Complainant and to address a website offering fake financial services.
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 USPTO trademark registration for E*TRADE is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4 (a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).”).
The at-issue domain name contains Complainant’s E*TRADE mark less its domain name impermissible asterisk, followed by the term “bit” (a reference suggesting “bitcoin”) and “fx” (an abbreviation for financial exchange), with all followed by the “.com” top-level. The differences between <etradebitfx.com> and Complainant’s E*TRADE trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) that Respondent’s <etradebitfx.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AB trademark. 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); see also, Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark); see also, Leland Turner v. joseph derer, FA 1618086 (Forum June 25, 2015) (“The [<lelandturner.com>] Domain Name consists of the Complainant's unregistered mark LELAND TURNER plus the gTLD designation .com. The addition of the .com gTLD does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's LELAND TURNER mark and the Panellist finds that this domain name is identical to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.”).
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 the 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). Since Respondent failed to respond, 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 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)”).
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Shadrack Ibiso” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by either the <etradebitfx.com> domain name or by E*TRADE. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <etradebitfx.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names because the WHOIS information listed “Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a Electromatic Equip't” as the registrant and there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names in dispute).
Respondent uses the E*TRADE domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and address a website offering fake financial services appearing similar or identical to those offered by Complainant under its E*TRADE trademark. Respondent’s <etradebitfx.com> website displays the company name “E-TRADE BIT FX” while offering bogus investment opportunities and claiming to be certified by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Respondent’s use of the <etradebitfx.com> domain name in this manner fails to show either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Goodwin Procter LLP v. GAYLE FANDETTI, FA 1738231 (Forum Aug. 8, 2017) (“[T]he Domain Name has been used in an attempted fraud. As such it cannot have been registered for a legitimate purpose.”); see also Nycomed Danmark ApS v. Diaz, D2006-0779 (WIPO Aug. 15, 2006) (concluding that the respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to operate a website promoting an illegal food supplement was not 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)).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present which permit the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First and as mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses <etradebitfx.com> to pass itself off as Complainant and address a website offering fake financial services similar to the services actually offered by Complainant. Such use is disruptive to Complainant’s business and discloses Respondent’s attempt to capitalize on the confusion it created between the at-issue domain name and Complainant’s trademark. Respondent’s use of the domain name thus shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Fitness International, LLC v. ALISTAIR SWODECK / VICTOR AND MURRAY, FA1506001623644 (Forum July 9, 2015) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to operate a website that purports to offer health club related services such as fitness experts, fitness models, fitness venues, exercise programs, and personal training, all of which are the exact services offered by Complainant. Doing so causes customer confusion, disrupts Complainant’s business, and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also, Carey Int’l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) (“[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). Markedly, Respondents use of <etradebitfx.com> to defraud third-parties is emblematic of bad faith registration and use under the Policy.
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the E*TRADE mark when it registered <etradebitfx.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s use of <etradebitfx.com> as discussed elsewhere herein. 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”). Respondent’s registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in such domain name further shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Norgren GmbH v. Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft, FA1501001599884 (Forum Feb. 25, 2014) (holding that the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant and its rights in the mark, thus demonstrating bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to purposely host links related to the complainant’s field of operation).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <etradebitfx.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: July 27, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page