HDR Global Trading Limited v. andrew west
Claim Number: FA2111001972546
Complainant is HDR Global Trading Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Mary D. Hallerman of SNELL & WILMER L.L.P, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is andrew west (“Respondent”), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bitmexinvest.ltd>, registered with NameCheap, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 9, 2021; the Forum received payment on November 9, 2021.
On November 9, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bitmexinvest.ltd> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 November 10, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 30, 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@bitmexinvest.ltd. Also on November 10, 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 December 2, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant owns and operates a leading and prominent cryptocurrency-based trading platform.
Complainant has rights in the BITMEX mark through its registration of the mark with numerous trademark authorities around the world.
Respondent’s <bitmexinvest.ltd> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITMEX mark. Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the descriptive term “invest” along with the “.ltd” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <bitmexinvest.ltd> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the BITMEX mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant and confuse and defraud internet users.
Respondent registered and used the <bitmexinvest.ltd> domain name in bad faith as Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant and offer competing and similar services. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BITMEX mark due to the longstanding use and fame of the mark in commerce and Respondent’s use of the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and defraud internet users.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in the BITMEX mark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the BITMEX trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that offers competing and similar services to those offered by Complainant.
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 at-issue domain name is identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s USPTO trademark registration for BITMEX, as well as any of its other trademark registrations for such mark worldwide, is conclusive evidence of Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Alibaba Group Holding Limited v. YINGFENG WANG, FA 1568531 (Forum Aug. 21, 2014) (“Complainant has rights in the ALIBABA mark under the Policy through registration with trademark authorities in numerous countries around the world.”); see also, ECCO SKO A/S v. Bobrov Danila, FA 1770718 (Forum Mar. 12, 2018) (“Complainant has rights in the ECCO mark based on a series of trademark registrations via the Madrid Protocol through the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”)).
Respondent’s <bitmexinvest.ltd> domain name contains Complainant’s entire BITMEX trademark suffixed with the suggestive term “invest.” Respondent’s domain name, as all domain names, concludes with a compulsory top-level domain name, here “.ltd.” The differences between Complainant’s BITMEX trademark and <bitmexinvest.ltd> fail to distinguish the domain name from the mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <bitmexinvest.ltd> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITMEX trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Kurk Wasserman Consulting, L.L.C. v. ming li, FA 1782613 (Forum May 29, 2018) (“Respondent’s <lilashserum.us> domain name is confusingly similar to the LILASH mark as Respondent merely adds the descriptive term “serum” and the “.us” ccTLD to the mark.”).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the <bitmexinvest.ltd> 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.
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the registrant of <bitmexinvest.ltd> as “Andrew West” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by the <bitmexinvest.ltd> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Moreover, Respondent uses the confusingly similar <bitmexinvest.ltd> domain name to address a website displaying links and content related to Complainant’s business. The website is entitled “Bitmex Invest” and uses a blue and red color scheme and dark background similar to Complainant’s official website. The website further provides information concerned with cryptocurrency trading. Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name in this manner constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Invesco Ltd. v. Premanshu Rana, FA 1733167 (Forum July 10, 2017) (“Use of a domain name to divert Internet users to a competing website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, there is evidence from which the Panel may conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
As discussed above regarding rights and interests, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to capitalize on Complainant’s goodwill by addressing a website offering competitive services to that of Complainant. Respondent uses the domain name and website to trick internet users into believing they are dealing with Complainant when they are not in furtherance of defrauding such users. Respondent’s actions show Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain).
Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BITMEX mark when it registered <bitmexinvest.ltd> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident given the notoriety of Complainant’s BITMEX trademark and from Respondent’s use of the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. Respondent’s registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights in such domain name further indicates Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bitmexinvest.ltd> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: December 3, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page