Bittrex, Inc. v. Anton Strigin
Claim Number: FA1804001782846
Complainant is Bittrex, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Patchen M. Haggerty of Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is Anton Strigin (“Respondent”), Russian Foundation.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bittrexbot.com>, registered with Automattic Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 20, 2018; the Forum received payment on April 20, 2018.
On April 23, 2018, Automattic Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bittrexbot.com> domain name is registered with Automattic Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Automattic Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Automattic 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 April 26, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 16, 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@bittrexbot.com. Also on April 26, 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 May 21, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
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 a response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant uses the BITTREX service mark to operate one of the leading cryptocurrency exchanges in the world.
Complainant holds a registration for the BITTREX service mark, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as Registry No. 5,380,786, registered January 16, 2018, relating back to an application filed February 13, 2017.
Respondent registered the domain name <bittrexbot.com> on June 25, 2017.
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITTREX mark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the BITTREX mark in any manner.
Respondent’s use of the domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Rather, Respondent uses the domain name to offer cryptocurrency services in competition with the business of Complainant.
Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Respondent use of the domain name disrupts Complainant’s business.
Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BITTREX mark at the time it registered the domain name.
Respondent used a privacy service when registering the domain name.
Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to a service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the same domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent 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:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
ii. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel will, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, decide this proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations, and, pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, draw such inferences as it deems appropriate. The Panel is entitled to accept as true all reasonable allegations and inferences set out in the Complaint unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (finding that a respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of a UDRP complaint to be deemed true). See also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO February 29, 2000): “In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”
Complainant has rights in the BITTREX service mark sufficient for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the USPTO. See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum August 11, 2015):
There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant’s rights [in a mark] under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) ....
This is true without regard to whether Complainant’s rights in its mark arise from registration of the mark in a jurisdiction (here the United States) other than that in which Respondent resides or does business (here “Russian Foundation”). See, for example, W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1334458 (Forum August 24, 2010):
[T]he Panel finds that USPTO registration is sufficient to establish these [Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)] rights even when Respondent lives or operates in a different country.
The record reflects that Respondent registered the <bittrexbot.com> domain name on June 25, 2017, while Complainant registered its BITTREX mark on January 16, 2018. This gives rise to an implication that Respondent may have rights in the domain name senior in time to Complainant’s rights in its mark. However, it is well established that a UDRP complainant’s rights in a mark relate back to the date of filing of its application for registration, which in this case was February 13, 2017. Complainant thus has seniority of rights in its mark vis-ŕ-vis those of Respondent in its domain name. See Appian Corporation v. Wellman Yu, FA1774926 (Forum April 9, 2018):
Complainant claims rights in the … mark based upon its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (... Reg. No. 4,224,718, filed Jan. 19, 2012, registered on Oct. 16, 2012). Registration with a governmental trademark agency, such as the USPTO, is sufficient to prove Policy ¶4(a)(i) rights in a mark, and such rights date back to the 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 [mark registration] filing date.”).
Turning to the central question posed by Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), we conclude from a review of the record that Respondent’s <bittrexbot.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITTREX service mark. The domain name wholly incorporates the mark with only the addition of the generic term “bot” and the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum January 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity existed where a domain name contained a UDRP complainant’s entire mark and differed only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and a top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and the mark being insufficient to distinguish one from the other for purposes of the Policy).
See also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum March 27, 2007) (concluding that affixing a gTLD to the mark of another in creating a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). This is because every domain name requires a gTLD.
Under Policy 4(a)(ii), Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the <bittrexbot.com> domain name, whereupon the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum August 18, 2006) (finding that a UDRP complainant must make a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name under UDRP¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to that respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests). See also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum September 25, 2006):
Complainant must … 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, … the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.
Complainant has made out a sufficient prima facie showing under this head of the Policy. Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint therefore permits us to infer that Respondent does not have rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO December 21, 2000) (finding that a respondent’s failure to respond to a UDRP complaint allows a presumption that a complainant’s allegations are true unless they are clearly contradicted by the evidence). Nonetheless, we will examine the record before us, in light of the several considerations set out in Policy ¶ 4(c) (i)-(iii), to determine whether there is in it any basis for concluding that Respondent has rights to or legitimate interests in the contested domain name that are cognizable under the Policy.
We begin by noting that Complainant contends, and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <bittrexbot.com> domain name, and that Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the BITTREX mark in any manner. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the domain name only as
“Anton Strigin,” which does not resemble the domain name. On this record, we conclude that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in it within the ambit of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), that a respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name where the relevant WHOIS information identified its registrant only as “Fred Wallace.” See also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name where a UDRP complainant had not authorized that respondent to incorporate its mark in a domain name).
We next observe that Complainant asserts, without objection from Respondent, that Respondent uses the <bittrexbot.com> domain name to offer cryptocurrency services in competition with the business of Complainant. In the circumstances described in the Complaint, we may comfortably presume that Respondent profits from this employment of the domain name. This use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) such as would confirm in Respondent rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name as provided in those subsections of the Policy. See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum March 10, 2016):
[Us]e of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a [UDRP] 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).
The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the proof requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
We are persuaded by the evidence that Respondent’s employment of the challenged <bittrexbot.com> domain name as alleged in the Complaint disrupts Complainant’s business. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), this stands as proof of Respondent’s bad faith in registering and using the domain name. See, for example, LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, FA1762308 (Forum January 9, 2018) (finding, under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), that a respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to offer competing loan services disrupted a UDRP complainant’s business and therefore demonstrated its bad faith in registering and using that domain name).
We are also convinced by the evidence that Respondent’s employment of the <bittrexbot.com> domain name, which we have found to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITTREX service mark, is an attempt by Respondent to profit financially from the confusion thus caused among Internet users as to the possibility of Complainant’s affiliation with the domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), this too demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith in registering and using the domain name. See, for example, Xylem Inc. v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015):
The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website [resolving from a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of a UDRP Complainant] to display products similar to [that] Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
The Panel thus finds that Complainant has met its obligations of proof under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required to be proven under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bittrexbot.com> domain name be forthwith TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: May 24, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page