Ripple Labs Inc. v. Lus Sundropa / Rippletrade
Claim Number: FA1708001745308
Complainant is Ripple Labs Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Rachel Jacques of Maschoff Brennan, Utah, USA. Respondent is Lus Sundropa / Rippletrade (“Respondent”), Cambodia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <rippletrade.biz>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 18, 2017; the Forum received payment on August 18, 2017.
On August 21, 2017, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <rippletrade.biz> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 22, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 11, 2017 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@rippletrade.biz. Also on August 22, 2017, 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.
Respondent did not submit a Response, but he did send some e-mails to the Forum see below. Having received no formal response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 14, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it is in the traditional and virtual currency business. In connection with this business, Complainant uses the RIPPLE mark to promote its goods and services. Complainant has rights in the RIPPLE mark based upon registration in the United States in 2014.
According to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark as it appends the descriptive term “trade” and the generic top-level-domain (“gTLD”) “.biz” to Complainant’s wholly incorporated mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to register a domain name or use the RIPPLE marks in any way. Further, Respondent failed to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or otherwise fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a website offering competing services to those offered by Complainant, and the resolving website contains Complainant’s mark and logo. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent intentionally attracts Internet users otherwise seeking Complainant for Respondent’s presumed commercial gain. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the RIPPLE marks prior to registration of the disputed domain name. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. However, Respondent did send some e-mails to the Forum, in which he stated, in pertinent part (sic):
we are not have any challenge or competitive with ripple lab we are trading crypto and use ripple as payment gateway only
i submit that i use this logo of ripple and violet trade mark , right now i disable this domain already and stop use use within logo of ripple also .
what i need is i want to put private information on that domain
Complainant has rights in the mark RIPPLE dating back to 2014.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2017.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
Respondent is using the disputed domain names to resolve to a web site that contains links to products and services that compete with those of Complainant.
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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it appends the descriptive term “trade” and the gTLD “.biz” to Complainant’s wholly incorporated mark. The addition of terms descriptive of a complainant’s business does not remove the resulting domain name from the realm of confusing similarity per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i); likewise, the addition of a gTLD to a complainant’s mark is irrelevant for a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding that the addition of the generic term “finance,” which described the complainant’s financial services business, as well as a gTLD, did not sufficiently distinguish the respondent’s disputed domain name from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The Panel therefore finds Respondent’s domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark in the sense of the Policy.
Complainant has not authorized Respondent to register a domain name or use the RIPPLE marks in any way. In lieu of a Response, Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) provides that WHOIS information can substantiate a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name; similarly, Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) gives weight to a respondent’s failure to get its use of a complainant’s mark authorized. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name); see also CheapCaribbean.com, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA1411001589962 (Forum Jan. 1, 2015) (“The Panel notes that the WHOIS information merely lists a privacy service as registrant. In light of Respondent’s failure to provide any evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds there is no basis to find Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”). Here, the WHOIS information shows “Lus Sundropa” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Further, Respondent failed to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or otherwise fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a website offering competing services to those offered by Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name to compete with a complainant’s business does not indicate a bona fide offer per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent failed to make a bona fide use of the disputed domain name and, further, lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
In his e-mails to the Forum, Respondent admits using Complainant’s mark and offering competing services. He alleges that his intent was to use the disputed domain name only for private use. The Panel does not accept this explanation: the evidence provided by Complainant shows that the resolving web site contained links to services that compete with those of Complainant, and that it also contained Complainant’s logo and trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
From the evidence in the file, it is clear that Respondent intentionally attracts Internet users otherwise seeking Complainant for Respondent’s presumed commercial gain through the use of Complainant’s RIPPLE marks in the domain name and on the resolving website which offers competing services. Use of a domain name to cause confusion to Internet users seeking a complainant for the purpose of competing with a complainant’s business for a respondent’s commercial gain evinces a finding of bad faith use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). The Panel finds that Respondent used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <rippletrade.biz> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: September 14, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page