HDR Global Trading Limited v. Anonymize, Inc.
Claim Number: FA2108001959315
Complainant is HDR Global Trading Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Anne M. Bolamperti of SNELL & WILMER L.L.P, Arizona, USA. Respondent is Anonymize, Inc. (“Respondent”), Washington, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bitmexbt.com> (“Domain Name”), registered with Epik Inc..
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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 12, 2021; the Forum received payment on August 12, 2021.
On August 18, 2021, Epik Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bitmexbt.com> domain name is registered with Epik Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Epik Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Epik 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 August 19, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 8, 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@bitmexbt.com. Also on August 19, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 13, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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, HDR Global Trading Limited, owns and operates a cryptocurrency-based virtual trading platform. Complainant has rights in the BITMEX mark based upon the registration with multiple trademark organizations, including the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 16,462,327, registered August 11, 2017). Respondent’s <bitmexbt.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITMEX mark because it contains the mark in its entirety, merely adding the letters “bt” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <bitmexbt.com> domain name because Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use the BITMEX mark and is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent merely capitalizes on Complainant’s reputation to redirect internet users to a website that displays pay-per-click advertising.
Respondent registered and uses the <bitmexbt.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent capitalizes on the goodwill associated with Complainant’s mark for commercial gain by hosting a website used to generate revenue using pay-per-click advertising. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BITMEX mark when it registered the Domain Name based on the fame of the BITMEX mark and Complainant’s use of the mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the BITMEX mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITMEX mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name 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 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”).
Complainant has rights in the BITMEX mark through its registration with multiple trademark organizations, including the EUIPO (e.g., Reg. No. 16,462,327, registered August 11, 2017). Registration of a mark with the EUIPO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See 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).”).
The Panel finds that the <bitmexbt.com> domain name is confusing similar to Complainant’s BITMEX mark because it wholly incorporates the BITMEX mark, merely adding the letters “bt” and the “.com” gTLD. Minor changes such as the addition of letters and a gTLD are generally insufficient to negate confusing similarity between a domain name and the mark it incorporates per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Sergey Valerievich Kireev / Kireev, FA 1784651 (Forum June 5, 2018) (holding that the domain name consists of the BITTREX mark and adds “the letters ‘btc’ and the gTLD .com which do not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark.”).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first 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, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the BITMEX mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. 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 Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “Anonymize, Inc.” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Name is resolves to a website which appears to be used to obtain click-through revenue by linking to third-party websites unrelated to any descriptive meaning of the Domain Name. Use of a domain name generate pay-per-click links unrelated to any descriptive meaning of the domain name is not a use indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Priceline.com LLC v. levesque, bruno, FA1506001625137 (Forum July 29, 2015) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s attempt to divert Internet users who are looking for products relating to Complainant’s famous mark to a website unrelated to the mark does not engage in a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor does it make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Ferring B.V. v. Shanshan Huang / Melissa Domain Name Services, FA1505001620342 (Forum July 1, 2015) (“Placing unrelated third party links for the benefit of a respondent indicates a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services, and a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), respectively.”).
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Names, October 8, 2020, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s BITMEX mark. Complainant had by that date developed a considerable reputation in the coined BITMEX mark in the field of digitized currency trading services; moreover it would be unlikely for a party to register a domain name that wholly incorporates the coined BITMEX mark and redirect it to a pay-per-click website with links unconnected to any descriptive meaning absent any awareness of Complainant and its BITMEX mark (and intention to capitalize on Complainant’s reputation in its BITMEX mark). In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith in order to resolve to a website that provides a series of pay-per-click links for which Respondent would be expected to receive revenue. Use of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect Internet users to a website containing advertisements and links to third party websites for commercial gain is indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 3M Company v. Nguyen Hoang Son / Bussiness and Marketing, FA1408001575815 (Forum Sept. 18, 2014) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host sponsored advertisements for Amazon, through which the respondent presumably profited, indicated that the respondent had used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Tumblr, Inc. v. Ailing Liu, FA1402001543807 (Forum Mar. 24, 2014) (“Bad faith use and registration exists under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website featuring links and advertisements unrelated to complainant’s business and respondent is likely collecting fees.”).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bitmexbt.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: September 14, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page