Bittrex, Inc. v. ELEA MOREIRA BARBOSA
Claim Number: FA1807001796328
Complainant is Bittrex, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Patchen M. Haggerty of Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is ELEA MOREIRA BARBOSA (“Respondent”), Brazil.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bittrex-app.com> (the “Domain Name”), registered with NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 11, 2018; the Forum received payment on July 11, 2018.
On July 12, 2018, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bittrex-app.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 July 17, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 6, 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-app.com. Also on July 17, 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 August 8, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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’s contentions can be summarised as follows:
Complainant is the owner of the trade mark BITTREX, registered inter alia in the USA with first use recorded as 2014.
The Domain Name registered in 2018 is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITTREX mark, wholly incorporating it and adding only a hyphen, the generic term ‘app’ and the gTLD .com none of which distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark.
Respondent is not commonly known by the BITTREX mark and has no permission from Complainant to use Complainant’s mark. The Domain Name has been used for a clone of the log in page of Complainant’s web site and for a suspected phishing scam. This cannot be a bona fide offering of goods and services or a non commercial legitimate fair use. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
Respondent registered the Domain Name to direct it to web pages that mimic those of Complainant to confuse Internet users into believing the web site and Domain Name are associated with Complainant. The mimicking of Complainant shows Respondent is aware of Complainant and its business. The Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is the owner of the trade mark BITTREX, registered inter alia in the USA with first use recorded as 2014.
The Domain Name registered in 2018 has been pointed to a page mimicking the log in page to Complainant’s official site.
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.”).
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of Complainant's BITTREX mark (which is registered in USA for financial services with first use recorded as 2014), a hyphen, the generic term ‘app’ and the gTLD .com which do not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark.
Adding a hyphen does not distinguish a domain name from a domain name containing Complainant’s mark. See Health Devices Corp. v Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003) (The addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term ‘app’, meaning computer application, to Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy.
The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish a Domain Name from a complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the <redhat.org> domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITTREX registered mark.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4 (a) (i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorised the use of its marks. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sep. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
The web site attached to the Domain Name has copied the log in page from Complainant’s web site so that Respondent’s site appeared to be an official site of Complainant. It did not make it clear that there is no connection with Complainant. The Panel finds this use is deceptive and passing off. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See iFinex Inc. v Yuri Heifetz/Genie-Solution, FA 1789385 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent’s mimicking the complainant’s web site in order to cause existing or potential customers of the complainant’s to believe they are dealing with the complainant is prima facie evidence of the respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). Further, phishing itself cannot be a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non commercial fair use.
As such the Panelist finds that Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to Respondent’s site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by Complainant as it uses material from Complainant’s web site without permission. The fact that the log in section of Complainant’s web site has been copied shows that Respondent is aware of Complainant and its business. Accordingly, the Panel holds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of Complainant. See Allianz of AM. Corp v Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website).
Further, phishing can be evidence of bad faith registration and use within the Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA 1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015).
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paras. 4(b)(iv) and 4(b)(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 <bittrex-app.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: August 10, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page