Bittrex, Inc. v. ali R metil / Selaxattin U Mexmet
Claim Number: FA1802001770219
Complainant is Bittrex, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Patchen M. Haggerty of Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is ali R metil / Selaxattin U Mexmet (“Respondent”), Turkey.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <bittrex.fund>, <bittrex.financial>, and <bittrex.marketing>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
The undersigned certifies he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 2, 2018; the Forum received payment on February 2, 2018.
On February 5, 2018, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bittrex.fund>, <bittrex.financial>, and <bittrex.marketing> domain names are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 February 8, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 28, 2018 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@bittrex.fund, postmaster@bittrex.financial, and postmaster@bittrex.marketing. Also on February 8, 2018, 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 March 5, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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
On information and belief, Complainant alleges that the registrants of the Disputed Domains are both the same person or are under common ownership or control. Complainant bases this allegation on the fact that the domains were all registered on the same date through the same registrar, and bittrex.fund and bittrex.financial resolve to identical phishing schemes using copy-cat pages from Complainant’s website and list the same contact information, i.e., “Contact: +905396522525 - trpartner@bittrex.com.”
Likewise, all of the domains are registered using the same telephone number. See UDRP Rule 3(c) (providing that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided the disputed domain names are held by the same registrant); Thomson Reuters Global Resources v. Richard Marsh et al, FA FA1308001516146 (Forum Oct. 2, 2013) (finding complainant sufficiently alleged that the disputed domain names were effectively controlled by the same entity where the domains were used to display similar content, and registrant organization was listed under same name “intach”).
Trademark/Service Mark Information:
This Complaint is based on Complainant’s BITTREX trademark, which solely and exclusively identifies Complainant. Complainant owns trademark registrations for the BITTREX trademark in the U.S. (Reg. No. 5380786), the U.K. (Reg. No. UK00003231077) and European Union (Reg. No. 016727109), as well as a number of pending applications to register BITTREX worldwide, including U.S. Application No. 87333760.
Complainant is a U.S.-based company that operates one of the leading cryptocurrency exchanges in the world under the BITTREX mark.
Complainant began using the BITTREX mark in U.S. commerce in connection with its cryptocurrency exchange in February of 2014, and has continuously used the BITTREX mark with its services since that date. Complainant’s cryptocurrency exchange is the third largest cryptocurrency exchange in the world, as measured by assets traded. Complainant’s cryptocurrency exchange has more than 1,400,000 users based in 60 countries throughout the world. In addition, 200 digital tokens are currently being traded on Bittrex, amounting to a trading volume of 500,000,000 US dollars.
Complainant has spent substantial time, effort and money promoting the BITTREX mark in the U.S. and worldwide. As a result, the BITTREX mark has enjoyed widespread international recognition and consumers associate the BITTREX brand exclusively with Complainant. For example, when conducting a Twitter search for “BITTREX,” all of the search results revealed in the initial eleven pages of the search refer to Complainant.
The media also recognizes Complainant’s exclusive rights in the BITTREX trademark-- specifically, every current news article disclosed in a Google search for “BITTREX” refers to Complainant.
Complainant currently owns a registration for the domain name <bittrex.com> (the “Bittrex Domain”). Complainant began using the Bittrex Domain in connection with its business in 2014 and has continuously done so since that time. Complainant’s website, which it uses in connection with its business, prominently displays the BITTREX mark and is located at the Bittrex Domain (the “Bittrex Website”).
UDRP Rule 3(b)(viii).
FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS
This Complaint is premised on Respondent’s malicious and dangerous use of the Disputed Domains to impersonate Complainant in order to fraudulently obtain Complainant customers’ user identification and password credentials and steal from their cryptocurrency accounts, or otherwise engage in illegal activity. Specifically, Respondent’s websites bittrex.fund and bittrex.financial are a direct copy of the Bittrex Website, and prompt consumers to enter their login credentials.[1] Complainant files this Complaint to stop Respondent’s illegal and fraudulent conduct and to transfer the Disputed Domains.
[a.] The Disputed Domains Are Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s BITTREX Trademark
[i.] The Disputed Domains are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITTREX trademark because they wholly incorporate Complainant’s BITTREX mark and are differentiated only by the addition of the generic gTLDs .fund, .financial and .marketing. Use of these particular TLDs only increases the potential for confusion because .fund and .financial relate to the financial industry and Complainant is operating a cryptocurrency exchange and thus operating in the financial sector. Likewise, use of the .marketing gTLD has the potential to create confusion because it appears to be associated with advertising or marketing generated by Complainant.
Thus, the Disputed Domains are functionally identical to the BITTREX trademark and domain, and adoption of the Disputed Domains evidences an intent to pass-off the Disputed Domains as Complainant’s domain in order to lure victims into the phishing scam. See MTS Inc. d/b/a Tower Records v. John Zuccarini d/b/a Cupcake Patrol, FA0107000098343 (Forum Sept. 17, 2001) (holding that domain name that is misspelled version of complainant’s mark is confusing similar); Boch Imports, Inc. & Boch Imports W., Inc. & Boch New To You, Inc. v. Westboro Motors, Inc., FA1002001308051 (Forum April 6, 2010) (“[A]dding generic terms,especially a geographic term or terms that are descriptive of a Complainant’s business . . . to a Complainant’s complete mark fails to create a new mark and in fact in this case establishes two domain names that have confusing similarity to Complainant’s mark”); Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (holding that attaching a gTLD is “unable to create a distinction capable of overcoming a finding of confusing similarity”). Thus, the Disputed Domain is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered BITTREX mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).
[ii.] Respondents registered the Disputed Domains on the date identified in Section 5(a) above, whereas Complainant first used the BITTREX mark in connection with its business in 2014. Additionally, Complainant filed its earliest trademark application in February 2017. Complainant’s rights in the BITTREX mark predate the registration date of the Disputed Domain and Complainant clearly has priority in the BITTREX trademark.
[b.] The Respondents Have No Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Disputed Domains
[i.] A complainant must show that a respondent has “no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.” UDRP Rule 3(b)(ix)(2). Here, Respondents have no license or authorization to use the BITTREX mark and are not commonly known by the Disputed Domains or any variant of the BITTREX mark. See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the emitmortgage.com domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name); Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720 (Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating that “nothing in [the respondent’s] WHOIS information implies that [the respondent] is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” is one factor in determining that Policy ¶4(c)(ii) does not apply).
[ii.] In addition, Respondents have not and are not using the Disputed Domains in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondents are using the Disputed Domains as part of a fraudulent phishing scheme to obtain customer information by replicating the Bittrex Website and impersonating Bittrex. The Disputed Domains bittrex.fundand bittrex.financial both resolve to a copy-cat website with an identical home page to Complainant’s home page and identical log-in pages seeking customer credentials.
Respondents’ fraudulent and illegal activity demonstrates Respondents’ lack of legitimate interest in the Disputed Domains. See, e.g., Bechtel Grp., Inc. v. Dudley, FA 1636223 (Forum Oct. 12, 2015) (noting that it is well-settled that “the use of a confusingly similar domain name in a fraudulent e-mail scheme” and/or “to pass [one]self off as the complainant,” amounts “to a lack of rights or legitimate interests”); Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 690796 (Forum June 12, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <allianzcorp.biz> domain name to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users seeking complainant’s financial services was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); Kmart of Mich., Inc. v. Cone, FA 655014 (Forum Apr. 25, 2006) (finding the respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as the complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use where the respondent used the domain to present users with a website that was nearly identical to the complainant’s website); Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Mita Ireland Ltd. c/o Michael Boutenko, FA 1314998 (Forum Apr. 30, 2010) (A respondent’s use of a domain name to “phish” for users’ information is was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). Likewise, purchasing the Disputed Domain bittrex.marketing and holding it, on information and belief, for use in connection with a future phishing scam is not a bona fide use or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
[iii.] Therefore, Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domains.
[c.] The Disputed Domains Were Registered and Are Used in Bad Faith
[i.] Respondents’ actions make clear that the Disputed Domains were registered and are being used in bad faith. Policy ¶4(b). Specifically, Respondents registered and are using the Disputed Domains to redirect Internet users to websites that directly copy the Bittrex Website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondents are Complainant, or are otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant. Prior panels have held that use of a domain name to intentionally create a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of a complainant constitutes bad faith. Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See, e.g., Yahoo! Inc. v. Dank, FA 203169 (Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (finding respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for an information theft scam and illegal commercial gain constituted bad faith); Wells Fargo & Co. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1592062 (Forum Jan. 4, 2015) (finding bad faith in creating a false association with complainant and operating a phishing scheme to obtain personal information); Smiths Grp. plc v. Snooks, FA 1372112 (Forum Mar. 18, 2011) (“Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by using the Domain Name to pass itself off as Complainant for Respondent’s fraudulent commercial gain.”); Regents of the Univ. of Mich. v. VistaPrint Tech. Ltd., FA 1460764 (Forum Oct. 5, 2012) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s fraudulent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant constitute evidence of bad faith registration and use.”). Likewise, Respondents’ registration of the bittrex.marketing Disputed Domain, on information and belief, to be used in connection with a future phishing scam is also bad faith.
[ii.] Respondents’ copying of the Complainant’s website shows that Respondents had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BITTREX mark prior to registering the Disputed Domains and, in turn, is evidence of bad faith. See 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); Brownell Travel, Inc. v. Troy Haas, FA 1589137 (Forum Dec. 20, 2014).
[iii.] Respondents’ copious use of the BITTREX mark in connection with confusingly similar domain names and cloned website creates a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Disputed Domain. Respondents’ attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain is also evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Miles, FA 105890 (Forum May 31, 2002) (“Respondent is using the domain name at issue to resolve to a website at which Complainant’s trademarks and logos are prominently displayed. Respondent has done this with full knowledge of Complainant’s business and trademarks. The Panel finds that this conduct is that which is prohibited by Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”).
[iv.] Therefore, Respondents registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(1) the domain names registered by Respondent are identical 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 names; and
(3) the domain names have been registered and are being used 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 Complainant prove the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:
(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.”).
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Respondents
In the instant proceedings, Complainant claims the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” All three domain names were all registered on the same day, through the same registrar, using the same telephone number. The <bittrex.fund> and <bittrex.financial> domain names both resolve to the same webpage and employ the same phishing scheme. This Panel finds this sufficient under the facts of this case, especially since Respondent is not contesting the issue.
Complainant claims rights in the BITTREX mark due to its registration of the mark with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) (UKIPO—Reg. No. UK00003231077, registered Oct. 6, 2017, effective date May 15, 2017; EUIPO—Reg. No. 016727109, registered Oct. 13, 2017, filed May 15, 2017). Registration with a governmental trademark agency, such as the UKIPO or the EUIPO, is sufficient to prove Policy ¶4(a)(i) rights in a mark. See Astute, Inc. v. Raviprasath C / Astute Solution Pvt Ltd, FA 1546283 (Forum Apr. 9, 2014) (finding that registrations with two major trademark agencies is evidence enough of Policy ¶4(a)(i) rights in the ASTUTE SOLUTIONS mark.); see also Russell & Bromley Limited v. KIM H. SUK, FA 1729773 (Forum June 12, 2017) (Registration with the UKIPO (or any other governmental authority) is sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i), even if Respondent is located in another country.”). Complainant has established sufficient rights to the BITTREX mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Complainant claims Respondent’s <bittrex.fund>, <bittrex.financial>, and <bittrex.marketing> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because the domain names only add various gTLDs to Complainant’s complete mark. A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. See Sea World, Inc. v. JMXTRADE.com, FA 872052 (Forum Feb. 12, 2007) (“[Since] [t]he top-level gTLD is merely a functional element required of every domain name, the <shamu.org> domain name is identical to the SHAMU mark under a Policy ¶4(a)(i).”). The <bittrex.fund>, <bittrex.financial>, and <bittrex.marketing> domain names are identical to the BITTREX mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) satisfied.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii). Then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it has rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant claims Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <bittrex.fund>, <bittrex.financial>, and <bittrex.marketing> domain names. Where a there is no response, relevant information includes the WHOIS and any other claims by a complainant regarding the nature of its relationship with a respondent. See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark). The WHOIS information for the <bittrex.fund> domain name identifies “ali R metil” as the registrant. The WHOIS information for the <bittrex.financial> and <bittrex.marketing> domain names identifies “Selaxattin U Mexmet” as the registrant. Absent information in the record to the contrary (and there is none in this case), the WHOIS information and common sense allow the Panel to decide Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is no obvious relationship between any registrant’s name and the disputed domain names. Respondent has never been legitimately known by the BITTREX mark. 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). Respondent has never been legitimately affiliated with Complainant and has never been known by the domain names prior to their registration. Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s mark in any manner. The Panel must conclude Respondent is not commonly known by the <bittrex.fund>, <bittrex.financial>, and <bittrex.marketing> domain names under Policy ¶4(c)(ii).
Complainant claims Respondent does not use the <bittrex.fund>, <bittrex.financial>, and <bittrex.marketing> domain names in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) or (iii). Respondent uses the <bittrex.fund> and <bittrex.financial> domain names to pass Respondent off as Complainant to phish for Complainant’s customers’ data. It appears likely Respondent will use the <bittrex.marketing> domain name for the same in the future (and it may be currently used to send emails impersonating Complainant, as Complainant fears). Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) or (iii). See Google Inc. v. Pritam Singh / Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd., FA 1660771 (Forum March 17, 2016) (agreeing that respondent has not shown any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) or (iii) as the respondent used the complainant’s mark and logo on a resolving website containing offers for technical support and password recovery services, and soliciting Internet users’ personal information). Respondent makes no bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Complainant claims Respondent registered and uses the <bittrex.fund> and <bittrex.financial> domain names in bad faith by directing Internet users to a phishing site to get Complainant’s customer’s personal information. Complainant claims Respondent will use the <bittrex.marketing> domain name for the same in the future or is already using it as an email server to impersonate Complainant (which Respondent does not refute). Using a disputed domain name that trades upon the goodwill of a complainant for commercial gain constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum December 27, 2017) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”). Respondent uses the disputed domain names to phish for Complainant’s customers’ personal confidential information, which constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv).
Complainant claims Respondent uses the <bittrex.fund> and <bittrex.financial> domain names to pass off as Complainant to further a phishing scheme intended to defraud users. Complainant claims Respondent intends the use the <bittrex.marketing> domain name for the same in the future (or may be using it as an email server to impersonate Complainant). Phishing schemes constitute bad faith registration and use. See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“Respondent uses the <klabzuba-oilgas.com> domain to engage in phishing, which means Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii).”). Respondent did not contest any of these claims. The Panel agrees with Complainant’s claim. Respondent registered and use the domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
Complainant claims Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s BITTREX mark at the time it registered the <bittrex.fund>, <bittrex.financial>, and <bittrex.marketing> domain names. Actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registering an identical or confusingly similar domain name demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See 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). Respondent clearly copied Complainant’s web site at the <bittrex.fund> and <bittrex.financial> domain names. Respondent could not copy Complainant’s website without discovering Complainant’s mark. That knowledge does not fade simply because Respondent registered the <bittrex.marketing> domain name nine days earlier. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, demonstrating bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered the <bittrex.fund>, <bittrex.financial>, and <bittrex.marketing> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Monday, March 05, 2018
[1] Currently, bittrex.marketing is not resolving to content. However, this domain should also be transferred because it was registered by Respondents, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s domain, and Respondents should not be permitted to use the domain in connection with a future phishing scam, such as those currently being perpetrated using the bittrex.fund and bittrex.financial domains.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page