Ripple Labs Inc. v. Georges Lacroix
Claim Number: FA1711001759564
Complainant is Ripple Labs Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Rachel Jacques of Maschoff Brennan, Utah, USA. Respondent is Georges Lacroix (“Respondent”), Hungary.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <myripplewallet.info>, registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider.
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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 21, 2017; the Forum received payment on November 21, 2017.
On November 24, 2017, Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <myripplewallet.info> domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider 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 November 27, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 18, 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@myripplewallet.info. Also on November 27, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 22, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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. Complainant’s business offers an online currency exchange service for electronic trading of traditional and virtual currency. Complainant has rights in the RIPPLE mark by virtue of its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,453,543, registered Dec. 24, 2013).
2. Respondent’s <myripplewallet.info>[1] domain name is confusingly similar to the RIPPLE mark because the <myripplewallet.info> domain name comprises of the mark in its entirety, adds the term “my” before the Ripple mark, the term “wallet” after the Ripple mark, and the “.info” generic top level domain (“gTLD”).
3. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <myripplewallet.info> domain name. Respondent is not associated with Complainant and does not have any right as a licensee to use the RIPPLE mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name because Respondent only recently registered the domain name on October 27, 2017 and the WHOIS information identifies the registrant as “Georges Lecroix.”
4. Respondent’s <myripplewallet.info> domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent has used the domain name to pass off as Complainant and to promote and advertise its own purported services that directly compete with Complainant’s online currency exchange service.
5. Respondent has registered and uses the <myripplewallet.info> domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s use of the domain name amounts to an attempt to profit off the goodwill Complainant has in the mark by creating consumer confusion and diverting Internet users to its own website. Additionally, Respondent was well-aware of Complainant and its marks due to the use of the RIPPLE mark on Respondent’s resolving website.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the RIPPLE mark. Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RIPPLE mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the <myripplewallet.info> domain name and that Respondent registered and uses the domain name 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 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.”).
Complainant has rights to the RIPPLE mark due to its registration of the mark with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with a government trademark office like the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark. See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant’s registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Complainant has supplied this Panel with copies of its USPTO registrations for the RIPPLE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 4,453,543, registered Dec. 24, 2013). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently demonstrated it rights in the RIPPLE mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Next, Complainant contends the Respondent’s <myripplewallet.info> domain name is confusingly similar to the RIPPLE mark because it adds the non-distinctive words “my” and “wallet” on either side of the RIPPLE mark and the “.info” gTLD. Generally, adding generic terms and gTLDs are insufficient changes to distinguish a domain name from an incorporated mark in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Morgan Stanley v. Eugene Sykorsky / private person, FA 1651901 (Forum Jan. 19, 2016) (concluding that the addition of a generic term and top level domain to a trademark is inconsequential under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <myripplewallet.info> domain name is confusingly similar to the RIPPLE mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the <myripplewallet.info> domain name. This allegation must be supported with a prima facie showing by Complainant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). After a complainant successfully makes a prima facie case, a respondent is faced with the burden of proving it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. In Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Forum Feb. 13, 2007), the panel held that when a complainant produces a prima facie case, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c); see also Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <myripplewallet.info> domain name as it is not commonly known by the name, and is not licensed to use the RIPPLE mark in any way. In cases where a respondent fails to respond, panels have relied on WHOIS information to determine whether the respondent is commonly known by the domain name. See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record). Here, WHOIS information identifies the registrant as “Georges Lacroix.” Additionally, the lack of evidence in the record to indicate that the Respondent has been authorized to register the <myripplewallet.info> domain name using Complainant’s mark supports a finding that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). The Panel therefore finds under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the <myripplewallet.info> domain name.
Additionally, Complainant contends Respondent’s use of the <myripplewallet.info> domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Specifically, Complainant has provided evidence that Respondent relies on the goodwill associated with the RIPPLE mark in order to divert users and pass off as Complainant. Attempts to pass off as a complainant are not considered to be a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Netflix, Inc. v. Irpan Panjul / 3corp.inc, FA 1741976 (Forum Aug. 22, 2017) (“The usage of Complainant’s NETFLIX mark which has a significant reputation in relation to audio visual services for unauthorised audio visual material is not fair as the site does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with Complainant and this amounts to passing off.”). On the website resolving from Respondent’s <myripplewallet.info> domain name, Complainant’s RIPPLE mark is prominently displayed in association with a purported “Ripple Wallet” service. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
Furthermore, Complainant has shown, without contradiction that Respondent promotes and advertises its own purported online currency exchange service to consumers which directly competes with Complainant. Use of a domain name containing a trademark of another, to offer goods or services which competes with a complainant’s business does not provide rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (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).”). Complainant has shown that Respondent’s <myripplewallet.info> domain name resolves to a website which purports to offer “free wallets” for online currency exchange, in direct competition with Complainant. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <myripplewallet.info> domain name does not amount to a bona fide offer of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant asserts Respondent registered and uses its <myripplewallet.info> domain name in bad faith by attempting to attract users, for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s domain name. Diverting users from a complainant’s business and purporting to offer competing services amounts to bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”). Respondent’s registration and use of the <myripplewallet.info> domain name is in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Finally, Complainant contends Respondent was well-aware of Complainant and its RIPPLE mark at the time Respondent registered and subsequently used the <myripplewallet.info> domain name. Complainant’s RIPPLE mark is prominently displayed on Respondent’s site. This is ample proof that Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s mark when it registered the domain name. See Deep Foods, Inc. v. Jamruke, LLC, FA 648190 (Forum Apr. 10, 2006) (stating that while mere constructive knowledge is insufficient to support a finding of bad faith, where the circumstances indicate that the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant's mark when it registered the domain name, panels can find bad faith); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration"). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds 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 <myripplewallet.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: December 27, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page