HDR Global Trading Limited v. Anonymize Inc. / Privacy Administrator
Claim Number: FA1908001857075
Complainant is HDR Global Trading Limited (“Complainant”), represented by J. Damon Ashcraft of SNELL & WILMER L.L.P, Arizona, USA. Respondent is Anonymize Inc. / Privacy Administrator (“Respondent”), Washington, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bitmex.world>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.
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 August 13, 2019; the Forum received payment on August 13, 2019.
On August 13, 2019, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bitmex.world> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 August 14, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 3, 2019, by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail message addressed to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@bitmex.world. In addition, on August 14, 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 September 5, 2019, 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 is a leading cryptocurrency-based virtual trading platform marketed to millions of consumers around the world.
Complainant holds a registration for the BITMEX trademark, which is on file with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) as Registry No. 01646237, registered August 11, 2017.
Respondent registered the domain name <bitmex.world> on July 1, 2019.
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITMEX mark.
Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use the BITMEX mark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name.
Respondent fails to use the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Respondent uses the domain name to resolve to a website that offers the domain name for sale for $350.00.
Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Respondent knew of Complainant’s rights in the BITMEX mark prior to registering the domain name.
Respondent registered and uses 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 substantively identical and confusingly similar to a trademark 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 was 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 to 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 claims and inferences set out in the Complaint unless the supporting evidence is manifestly contradictory. See, for example, 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). But see 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”).
Complainant has rights in the BITMEX trademark sufficient for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by reason of its registration of the mark with a governmental trademark authority, the EUIPO. See, for example, Sanlam Life Insurance Limited v. Syed Hussain / Domain Management MIC, FA 1787219 (Forum June 15, 2018):
Registration of a mark with the EUIPO, a government agency, sufficiently confers a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Turning to the central question posed by Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), we conclude from a review of the record that Respondent’s <bitmex.world> domain name is substantively identical, and thus confusingly similar, to Complainant’s BITMEX trademark. The domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.world.” This alteration of the mark, made in forming the domain name, does not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy. See, for example, Bittrex, Inc. v. Privacy protection service - whoisproxy.ru, FA 1759828 (Forum January 12, 2018):
The Panel here finds that the <bittrex.market> domain name is identical to the BITTREX mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Further see Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Forum September 27, 2002):
[I]t is a well-established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.
This is because every domain name requires a gTLD or other TLD.
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must make out a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the <bitmex.world> 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 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 <bitmex.world> domain name, and that Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the BITMEX mark. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the domain name only as “Anonymize Inc. / Privacy Administrator,” 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, for example, Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum September 4, 2018) (concluding that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name incorporating the GOOGLE mark where the relevant WHOIS record identified that respondent as “Bhawana Chandel,” and nothing in the record showed that that respondent was authorized to use a UDRP Complainant’s mark in any manner). See also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 620789 (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 fails to make any active use of the <bitmex.world> domain name, and that the domain name merely resolves to a website at which the domain is offered for sale for a price of $350.00. In the circumstances described in the Complaint, we conclude that Respondent is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the domain name as provided in Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it as provided in Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) such as would confirm in Respondent rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name within the meaning of those subsections of the Policy. See, for example, Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Forum September 2, 2004):
Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant’s mark and is not using the … domain name in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy¶4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy¶4(c)(iii).
The Panel thus finds that Complainant has satisfied the proof requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Inactive use of a domain name is a form of use. Therefore, Respondent’s inactive use of the <bitmex.world> domain name, in the circumstances described in the Complaint, is adequate to permit us to conclude, as we do, that Respondent has both registered and uses the domain name in bad faith within the contemplation of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See, for example, Telstra Corp. Ltd. v Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO February 18, 2000):
In light of the facts established …, the Administrative Panel finds that the Respondent does not conduct any legitimate commercial or non-commercial business …. [Moreover,] it is not possible to conceive of a plausible circumstance in which the Respondent could legitimately use the domain name …. It is also not possible to conceive of a plausible situation in which the Respondent would have been unaware of this fact at the time of registration. These findings, together with the finding … that the Respondent has no rights or interests in the domain name, lead the Administrative Panel to conclude that the domain name … has been registered by the Respondent in bad faith.
And the panel there continued:
[The] Administrative Panel concludes that the Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name in this particular case satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) that the domain name “is being used in bad faith” by Respondent.
See also: Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum August 16, 2007) (rejecting a respondent's contention that it did not register a disputed domain name in bad faith where a panel found that that respondent knew of a UDRP complainant's rights in a mark when it registered the domain name).
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 the relief requested must be, and it is hereby, GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bitmex.world> domain name be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: September 9, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page