Chia Network, Inc. v. kristof george
Claim Number: FA2111001974697
Complainant is Chia Network, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Mark A. Steiner of Duane Morris LLP, California, USA. Respondent is kristof george (“Respondent”), Belarus.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <chiacommerce.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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 November 26, 2021; the Forum received payment on November 26, 2021.
On November 29, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <chiacommerce.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 December 1, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 21, 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@chiacommerce.com. Also on December 1, 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. Respondent did however send emails to the Forum, see below.
On December 23, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it offers cryptocurrency related goods and services. Complainant has rights in the CHIA mark through its registration of the mark in the United States on July 20, 2021. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world, the earliest filing being February 2018 and the earliest registration being June 2018.
According to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHIA mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic term “commerce” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the CHIA mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name is used to offer competing services. Complainant’s counsel spoke with Respondent regarding its unauthorized use of the CHIA Mark. Complainant’s counsel expressed willingness to come to an agreement regarding future use of the mark. Following the initial telephone conversation, Respondent sent an email demanding that Complainant purchase the domain for 100-200 Chia (at the time, the equivalent of approximately $15,136). Complainant denied this bad faith offer, but reiterated its willingness to explore a possible licensing arrangement, if Respondent could guarantee compliance with all necessary laws and regulations applicable to his international e-commerce website. Complainant’s counsel sent Respondent a detailed email identifying these requirements. Respondent has not accepted Complainant’s offer. Rather, Respondent has stated that it would remove the website. However, as of the date filing the Complaint, the website remains active and in use, in violation of Complainant’s rights. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to disrupt Complainant’s business and divert customers for commercial gain: the resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo and purports to offer CHIA-sponsored merchandise or services and goods necessary to facilitate CHIA financial transactions. Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name for a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Respondent had constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CHIA mark when it registered the disputed domain name on August 6, 2021. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. In its emails to the Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part [sic]: “this whole situation was me trying to grow the chia community. there was never any bad intentions from my side, except maybe a bit laks after my recovery [from an illness]. tell me in laymans words what they want and ill make it happen in the next week.” And: “in the mean time i deleted the site”.
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.
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.
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."
The Panel interprets Respondent’s emails as consent to transfer the disputed domain name. Thus, in the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.
See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <chiacommerce.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: December 23, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page