HDR Global Trading Limited v. Nikunj Modha
Claim Number: FA1907001853263
Complainant is HDR Global Trading Limited (“Complainant”), represented by J. Damon Ashcraft of SNELL & V/ILMER L.L.P., Arizona, USA. Respondent is Nikunj Modha (“Respondent”), United Kingdom.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ebitmex.com> registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 22, 2019; the Forum received payment on July 22, 2019.
On July 23, 2019, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <ebitmex.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 24, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 13, 2019 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@ebitmex.com. Also on July 24, 2019, 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 15, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <ebitmex.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITMEX mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ebitmex.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <ebitmex.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to file a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, HDR Global Trading Limited, is a crypto-currency based virtual trading platform. Complainant holds a registration for the BITMEX mark with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (Reg. No. 016462327 registered on Aug. 11, 2017).
Respondent registered the <ebitmex.com> domain name on November 13, 2018, and uses it to direct Internet users to an inactive website.
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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the BITMEX mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon its registration of the mark with the EUIPO. See Wente Bros. v. I S / ICS INC, FA 1739664 (Forum Aug. 18, 2017) (finding the complainant’s registration of its WENTE and WENTE VINYARDS marks with the EUIPO sufficient to establish rights in the marks).
Respondent’s <ebitmex.com> domain name incorporates the BITMEX mark in its entirety, adding the letter “e” and a gTLD. The addition of a single letter and a gTLD is insufficient to distinguish a domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (“The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant’s mark does not remove the respondent’s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); 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). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <ebitmex.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITMEX mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant argues that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <ebitmex.com> domain name because Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s BITMEX mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information of record identifies the Respondent as “Nikunj Modha.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <ebitmex.com> domain name, and thus lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.”).
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the <ebitmex.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses the disputed domain name to host an inactive webpage. Passively holding a disputed domain name may not be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Kohler Co. v xi long chen, FA 1737910 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (”Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain. Respondent’s <kohler-corporation.com> resolves to an inactive webpage displaying the message “website coming soon!”). Complainant provides proof that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page, which displays the message “This website is parked for free.” The Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <ebitmex.com> domain name in bad faith because the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dr. Keenan Cofield, FA 1799574 (Forum Sep. 10, 2018) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where “the domain name initially resolved to a web page with a “website coming soon” message, and now resolves to an error page with no content.”).
Complainant also argues that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights because the BITMEX mark is so intrinsically linked to Complainant. The Panel agrees and finds that this is additional evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (“Complainant contends Respondent’s appropriation of Complainant’s trademark was a clear intent to trade upon Complainant’s reputation and goodwill in order to confuse Internet users. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark prior to registration and this constitutes bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(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 <ebitmex.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: August 16, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page