Bittrex, Inc. v. Not disclosed Not disclosed / IceNetworks Ltd.
Claim Number: FA1807001797852
Complainant is Bittrex, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Patchen M. Haggerty of Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is Not disclosed Not disclosed / IceNetworks Ltd. ("Respondent"), Iceland
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bittrexss.com>, registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp.
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 July 20, 2018; the Forum received payment on July 20, 2018.
On July 23, 2018, Internet Domain Service BS Corp confirmed by email to the Forum that the <bittrexss.com> domain name is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Internet Domain Service BS Corp has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet Domain Service BS Corp 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 23, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 13, 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@bittrexss.com. Also on July 23, 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 August 15, 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 is a U.S.-based company that operates one of the world's largest cryptocurrency exchanges, as measured by assets traded, with more than 1.4 million users in 60 countries. Complainant has used the BITTREX mark for this exchange since February 2014; Complainant owns registrations for the mark in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <bittrexss.com> in February 2018. Complainant states that the domain name is being used to redirect Internet users through a rotating series of different sites, quickly and automatically routing users to various URLs that are different each time. Complainant alleges that this redirection is used in connection with attempts to install malware on the user's computer, to scrape user information, or to engage in other illegal activities. Complainant states that Respondent has no license or other authorization to use Complainant's BITTREX mark, and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or any other variant of Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is 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 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 <bittrexss.com> corresponds to Complainant's registered BITTREX trademark, with the addition of the letters "SS" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Bittrex, Inc. v. Harun, FA 1790292 (Forum July 6, 2018) (finding <bittrexr.com> confusingly similar to BITTREX); Bittrex, Inc. v. Jonas Silva Bezerra, FA 1758585 (Forum Dec. 28, 2017) (finding <bittrexy.com>, <bittrexv.com>, <bittrexw.com>, and <bittrex3.com> confusingly similar to BITTREX); Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1490848 (Forum May 13, 2013) (finding <cheapticketsss.com> confusingly similar to CHEAPTICKETS.COM). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's mark without authorization, and its only apparent use has been in connection with what appears to be a fraudulent scheme, redirecting Internet users through a rotating series of websites, some of which attempt to install malware, scrape personal information, or facilitate other illegal activities. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Domain Privacy Services, FA 1786849 (Forum June 15, 2018) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests in similar circumstances).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed 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.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered a domain name obviously intended to create confusion with Complainant, and is using it in connection with an apparently fraudulent scheme, redirecting Internet users through a rotating series of websites, some of which attempt to install malware, scrape personal information, or facilitate other illegal activities. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the policy. See, e.g., Bittrex, Inc. v. Domain Privacy Services, 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 <bittrexss.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: August 20, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page