Hashflow Foundation v. mahdi Zanddizari / WEG2G
Claim Number: FA2204001993108
Complainant is Hashflow Foundation ("Complainant"), represented by Jonathan Uffelman of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is mahdi Zanddizari / WEG2G ("Respondent"), Maryland, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <hashflow.us>, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 20, 2022; the Forum received payment on April 20, 2022.
On April 21, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <hashflow.us> 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 the U.S. Department of Commerce's usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On April 22, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 12, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@hashflow.us. Also on April 22, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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.
The Forum received email correspondence from Respondent on April 22, 2022, and May 17, 2022, but did not receive a formal response. Accordingly, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 16, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 usTLD Policy, usTLD Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules, and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of a formal response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a business focused on cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology. Complainant uses the HASHFLOW mark in connection with its services, including a decentralized cryptocurrency exchange with daily trading volume of more than $12 million. Complainant applied to register the HASHFLOW mark on an intent-to-use basis in July 2019, and began it in April 2021; the registration issued in November 2021. On April 29, 2021, Complainant announced that it was launching its business with $3.2 million in funding, and the announcement received substantial media attention.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <hashflow.us> on May 5, 2021, using incomplete contact information. The domain name is being used for a website that prominently and repeatedly displays the HASHFLOW mark, and that offers products or services that compete with those offered by Complainant. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark. Complainant alleges that Complainant also goes by the name "Matt Zand," and that he has falsely held himself out as CEO of "HashFlow" in interviews, public speaking engagements, and a LinkedIn profile. Complainant states that Respondent did not respond to its cease-and-desist emails, and that Complainant subsequently hired an outside investigator, who found no evidence of any "HashFlow" company name or trademark other than those registered to Complainant. When the investigator contacted Respondent to inquire whether the domain name was available for sale, Respondent indicated a willingness to sell but stated that the price would be extremely high.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <hashflow.us> is identical or confusingly similar to its HASHFLOW mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a formal response in this proceeding.
In email correspondence, Respondent states as follows:
I reviewed your claim and it does not have any merit. Your company is bullying me to get my domain. Unfortunately, currently I do not have budget to dispute your claim, however, I can bring down our website (hashflow.us) and remove it from my Linkedin profile. [April 22, 2022]
Hashflow.us website is down now...I removed HashFlow from my Linkedin profile. [May 17, 2022]
(The Panel notes that the disputed domain name remains in use. The associated website currently displays a brief statement referring users to a different website, which also appears to be associated with Respondent and promotes similar or identical services.)
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered or 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."
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 or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP principles as applicable in rendering its decision.
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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <hashflow.us> corresponds to Complainant's registered HASHFLOW trademark, with the ".us" top-level domain appended thereto. The addition of a top-level domain such as ".us" is normally irrelevant for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., Koppers Inc. / Koppers Delaware, Inc. v. Carlos Urrego / 1982, FA 1956786 (Forum Aug. 30, 2021) (finding <koppers.us> identical to KOPPERS). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Its sole apparent use has been for a website displaying the mark and promoting competing services. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., HDR Global Trading Ltd. v. 1A Si Dun Fa Song Dao, FA 1951183 (Forum July 13, 2021) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); HDR Global Trading Ltd. v. Wenben Zhou, FA 1923924 (Forum Jan. 7, 2021) (same).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." Under paragraph 4(b)(iii), bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered a domain name corresponding to Complainant's name and mark shortly after Complainant's widely publicized launch and funding announcement, and used it to promote competing services. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., C.V. Starr & Co., Inc. & Starr International Co., Inc. v. Shen Zhong Chao, FA 1712431 (Forum Feb. 24, 2017) (finding bad faith where domain names combining names of parent company and subsidiary were registered on the same day that the acquisition was announced); HDR Global Trading Ltd. v. 1A Si Dun Fa Song Dao, supra (finding bad faith where domain name incorporating cryptocurrency-related mark was used to host purported cryptocurrency exchange); HDR Global Trading Ltd. v. Wenben Zhou, supra (same).
The Panel does not consider Respondent's vague response to an unsolicited purchase offer to be sufficient evidence that the domain name was acquired primarily for the purpose of selling it to Complainant or a competitor thereof. However, the circumstances do indicate that Respondent likely selected the domain name because of its correspondence to Complainant's mark, and that Respondent's intent was to disrupt Complainant's business, attract users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion, or both. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <hashflow.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: May 18, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page