Ripple Labs Inc. v. John Erea
Claim Number: FA1805001786531
Complainant is Ripple Labs Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Rachel Jacques of Maschoff Brennan, Utah, USA. Respondent is John Erea ("Respondent"), Ireland.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ripple-plus.org>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 14, 2018; the Forum received payment on May 14, 2018.
On May 17, 2018, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by email to the Forum that the <ripple-plus.org> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 May 17, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 6, 2018 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@ripple-plus.org. Also on May 17, 2018, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 June 11, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 provides services related to traditional and virtual currency under the RIPPLE mark. Complainant owns several U.S. trademark registrations for RIPPLE, in the form of both standard character and design marks, with dates of first use as early as 2004.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <ripple-plus.org> in February 2018, using a privacy registration service in an attempt to conceal his identity. The domain name is being used for a website that promotes "Ripple Plus," which it describes as "a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency and open source software project . . . [that] shares some of the main features of the well-known ripple" (italics in original). The website also refers to the "central corporation" that manages "ripple" (presumably Complainant), and displays multiple instances of Complainant's standard character and design marks. Complainant states that it has not licensed, authorized, or associated itself with Respondent in any way that would give Respondent the right to use Complainant's marks in Respondent's domain name or website, and that Respondent is using the marks for the purpose of promoting its services under the guise that it is somehow affiliated with or endorsed by Complainant. Complainant states further that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and asserts that any business Respondent may be conducting using the domain name depends wholly upon misleading consumers and trading upon Complainant's goodwill and reputation, precluding any claim of bona fide use.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
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 incorporates Complainant's mark without authorization, and is being used for a website purporting to promote services that would likely compete directly with those offered by Complainant, in a manner calculated to create a false impression of association with or endorsement by Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Ripple Labs Inc. v. Ngyen Ngoc Phuong Thao, supra (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests where domain name incorporating Complainant's RIPPLE and XRP marks was used for website promoting competing services).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
As stated above, Respondent registered and is using a domain name that incorporates Complainant's mark to promote competing services by creating a false impression of association with or endorsement by Complainant. Such use is indicative of bad faith registration and use under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). See, e.g., Ripple Labs Inc. v. Ngyen Ngoc Phuong Thao, supra (finding bad faith registration and use under similar circumstances). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ripple-plus.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: June 19, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page