Bittrex, Inc. v. Pc John / PCJ
Claim Number: FA1802001771312
Complainant is Bittrex, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Patchen M. Haggerty of Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is Pc John / PCJ (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bittrẹx.com>, registered with NameCheap, 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.
Hon. Karl v. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 9, 2018; the Forum received payment on February 9, 2018.
On February 12, 2018, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bittrẹx.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 February 13, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 5, 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@xn--bittrx-th8b.com. Also on February 13, 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 7, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) 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, Bittrex, Inc., is a U.S.-based company which uses the BITTREX mark to operate one of the leading cryptocurrency exchanges in the world. Complainant has rights in the BITTREX mark through 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) Respondent’s <bittrẹx.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITTREX mark as the domain name only adds an accent mark under the letter “e.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <bittrẹx.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use the BITTREX mark in any manner. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent used the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme to obtain customer information.
Respondent registered and is using the <bittrẹx.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered and used the domain name to direct 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 passes off as Complainant in order to phish for users’ information. Further, such use indicates Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark at the time it registered and subsequently used the domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Preliminary Issue: Internationalized Domain Name
The domain name in dispute, <bittrẹx.com> is an internationalized domain name (“IDN”) with the PUNYCODE translation(s) of <xn--bittrx-th8b.com>. An IDN is a domain name that contains non-traditional characters, such as letters with diacritics or other non-ASCII characters. In order to display characters or symbols in a domain name, the terms of the domain name are encoded into a scheme such as PUNYCODE. For Complainant to display the character “ẹ” properly in the <bittrẹx.com> domain name, it first had to encode it into the <xn--bittrx-th8b.com> domain name.
In the past, panels have found IDNs and their PUNYCODE translations to be equivalent. See Damien Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding an internationalized domain name, <têtu.com>, and its PUNYCODE translation, <xn--ttu-fma.com>, to be one and the same under the Policy); see also Württembergische Versicherung AG v. Emir Ulu, D2006-0278 (WIPO May 4, 2006) (finding that the <xn--wrttembergische-versicherung-16c.com> should be considered as equivalent to the <württembergische-versicherung.com> domain name, based on previous panel decisions recognizing the relevance of I-nav software for translating German letters such as “ä” or “ü” into codes such as <xn--[name]-16c> and similar); see also Fujitsu Ltd. v. tete and Lianqiu Li, D2006-0885 (WIPO Oct. 12, 2006) (finding the <xn--zqsv0e014e.com> domain name to be an exact reproduction of the complainant’s Chinese trademark in a domain name). This Panel finds that the <bittrẹx.com> domain name is the same as its PUNYCODE translation, <xn--bittrx-th8b.com> for purposes of this proceeding.
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel finds Complainant is entitled to the requested relief of transfer of the <bittrẹx.com> domain name.
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 claims rights in the BITTREX mark due to its registration of the mark with the UKIPO and the 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 of a mark with a trademark agency, such as the UKIPO or EUIPO, is regarded as proving sufficient rights to a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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.”). Further, rights in a mark which is eventually registered may extend back to the application filing date of the mark. See ADP, LLC v. Dennis Shifrin / Streamline, FA 1732114 (Forum June 13, 2017) (holding that “the relevant date for Complainant’s mark is the filing date.”). The Panel finds Complainant has established sufficient rights to the BITTREX mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <bittrẹx.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as the domain name adds an accent mark below the letter “e” in the BITTREX mark. The domain name also adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” neither of which sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i). See NIKE, Inc. and Nike Innovate, C.V. v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA1703001723952 (Forum May 11, 2017) (finding <nıke.com> [xn--nke-jua.com] confusingly similar to NIKE and noting, “Panels have determined that exchanging a letter in a mark for a Unicode character fails to distinguish a domain name for the purposes of a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis of confusing similarity”); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). The Panel finds that the <bittrẹx.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the BITTREX mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Complainant has proved this element.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have 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 contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <bittrẹx.com> domain name. Where a response is lacking, relevant information includes the WHOIS and any other assertions 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 identifies “Pc John / PCJ” as the registrant. Complainant asserts that no evidence exists to show that Respondent has ever been legitimately known by the BITTREX mark. Panels may use these assertions as evidence of lacking rights or legitimate interests. 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). Complainant alleges that Respondent has never been legitimately affiliated with Complainant, has never been known by the domain name prior to its registration, and Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use the mark in any manner. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <bittrẹx.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Additionally, Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the <bittrẹx.com> domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant to engage in a phishing scheme to obtain information from users. Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme can evince a failure to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. 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). Complainant provided a screenshot of the resolving domain, which appears to contain Complainant’s BITTREX mark, an identical photo, and the same primary message as is on Complainant’s website. Complainant also provides a screenshot of the warning page which indicates that users are about to enter a deceptive webpage. The Panel finds that Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant to fraudulently acquire personal information from unsuspecting users, and does not use the domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). The Panel finds Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant has proved this element.
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <bittrẹx.com> domain name in bad faith by creating a likelihood for confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name for its own commercial gain. Using a disputed domain name that trades upon the goodwill of a complainant for commercial gain can evince bad faith under 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).”). As noted in the previous section, Complainant provided a screenshot of the resolving domain, which appears to contain Complainant’s BITTREX mark, an identical photo, and the same primary message as is on Complainant’s website. Complainant alleges the commercial gain occurs by Respondent’s attempts to phish for information. The Panel agrees that Respondent attempts to commercially benefit off Complainant’s mark which amounts to bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant argues that Respondent uses the <bittrẹx.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant to further a phishing scheme intended to defraud users. Phishing schemes can evince 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).”). Complainant provided a screenshot of the warning page associated with the disputed domain name, which warns users that the domain name is connected with a deceptive webpage. The Panel finds that Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant to phish for information and that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, Complainant claims that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s BITTREX mark at the time it registered the domain name. Actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registering an identical or confusingly similar domain name can evince 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). Complainant contends that Respondent must have had actual knowledge of the mark based on Respondent’s use of the BITTREX mark on its fraudulent website. The Panel finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant has proved this element.
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the <bittrẹx.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) Panelist
Dated: March 15, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page