Cboe Exchange, Inc. v. Steel City / Michael Sabo
Claim Number: FA2106001949844
Complainant is Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kevin M. Bovard of Baker & Hostetler LLP, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Steel City / Michael Sabo (“Respondent”), Indiana, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <cboevixoptions.com> and <cboevixfutures.com> , registered with NameSilo, LLC.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 4, 2021; the Forum received payment on June 4, 2021.
On June 7, 2021, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <cboevixoptions.com> and <cboevixfutures.com> domain names are registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 June 11, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 1, 2021 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@cboevixoptions.com, postmaster@cboevixfutures.com. Also on June 11, 2021, 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.
By email of July 1, 2021, Respondent requested an extension. This was granted and, on July 2, 2021, the Forum informed Respondent that the new deadline for the response was July 6, 2021. No response was received by that deadline.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 7, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it is one of the most highly-regarded securities and derivatives exchanges in the United States and throughout the world. Complainant has rights in the CBOE and VIX marks through its registration of the marks in the United States in, respectively, 2001 and 2002.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its CBOE and VIX marks as they contain the marks in their entirety. The <cboevixoptions.com> domain merely adds the descriptive terms “options” and the gTLD “.com,” while the <cboevixfutures.com> domain merely adds the descriptive term “futures” and the gTLD “.com.”
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the CBOE or VIX marks. Respondent has not used the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as Respondent fails to make active use of the disputed domain names.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent fails to make active use of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CBOE and VIX marks, evidenced by Complainant’s trademark registrations and Respondent’s use of descriptive words in the domain names. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain names using a proxy service.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the marks CBOE and VIX and uses them to operate a security and derivatives exchange. Complainant and its marks are well known.
Complainant’s rights in its marks date back to, respectively, 2001 and 2002.
The disputed domain names were registered in 2021.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks.
The disputed domain names are not being used.
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 disputed domain names contain Complainant’s CBOE and VIX marks in their entirety; the <cboevixoptions.com> domain merely adds the descriptive term “options” and the gTLD “.com,” while the <cboevixfutures.com> domain merely adds the descriptive term “futures” and the gTLD “.com.” The combination of marks, and the addition of descriptive terms and a gTLD fail to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); see also Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, LLC, and Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. James VanBuren, FA 1624028 (Forum July 10, 2015) (“The disputed domain name combines two of Complainant's registered trademarks, WYNDHAM and EXTRA VACATIONS, omitting the space and adding the ".com" top-level domain name. These alterations do not diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's marks.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names: when a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant as “Steel City / Michael Sabo”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The disputed domain names are not being used. Failing to make active use of a disputed domain name may not be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). 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!”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s marks. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain names.
Indeed, as already noted, the disputed domain names are not being used. According to paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): “From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.”
In the present case, Complainant’s trademarks are well known. It is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain names that would not violate the Policy, see Morgan Stanley v. TONY / shentony, FA 1637186 (Forum Oct. 10, 2015) (“Respondent registered the disputed domain name [MORGANSTANLEY.ONLINE] in bad faith because . . . it is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy”); see also Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. European Travel Network, D2000-0641 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000) (where selection of disputed domain name is so obviously connected to complainant’s well-known trademark, use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton Int’l IP, LLC, Westin Hotel Mgmt., L.P. v. Jingjing Tang, D2014-1040 (WIPO Aug. 19, 2014) (“The Panel finds that the [WESTIN] Marks are not such that could legitimately be adopted by traders other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith”).
There has been no response to the Complaint and Respondent used a privacy service, that is, it attempted to conceal its identity. Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that, in this particular case, a finding of bad faith use can be inferred even though the disputed domain names are not being actively used. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <cboevixoptions.com> and <cboevixfutures.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: July 7, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page