Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Richie Hills / Miners Hub BTC LLC
Claim Number: FA2205001996898
Complainant is Securities Investor Protection Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Christopher H. LaRosa of Securities Investor Protection Corporation, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Richie Hills / Miners Hub BTC LLC ("Respondent"), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <sipc.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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 18, 2022; the Forum received payment on May 18, 2022.
On May 18, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <sipc.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 May 19, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 8, 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@sipc.ltd. Also on May 19, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 14, 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 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 is a non-profit membership corporation that administers a relief fund for customers of failed securities broker-dealers. Complainant has been in existence since 1970 and since that date has been commonly known and referred to by the acronym SIPC by regulatory authorities, members of the securities industry, and the general public. Complainant owns United States trademark registrations issued in 1997 for SIPC in both standard character and stylized form.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <sipc.ltd> via a privacy registration service in May 2022. The domain name is being used to display a copy of Complainant's website, in an apparent effort to impersonate Complainant.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <sipc.ltd> is identical or confusingly similar to its SIPC 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 Response in this proceeding.
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 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."
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 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 <sipc.ltd> corresponds to Complainant's registered SIPC trademark, with the ".ltd" top-level domain appended thereto. The addition of a top-level domain is normally irrelevant for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Sara, FA 1733440 (Forum July 10, 2017) (finding <sipc.online> identical or confusingly similar to SIPC); Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. SIPC.COM c/o SeriousNet, FA 982722 (Forum June 27, 2007) (finding <sipc.com> identical and confusingly similar to SIPC). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be identical to Complainant's registered mark.
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. It is being used to display what appears to be an exact copy of Complainant's website, for what the Panel infers to be fraudulent purposes. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Mercedita Bautista / eName General Reseller, FA 1896198 (Forum June 16, 2020) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Javier Santos, FA 1831215 (Forum Mar. 20, 2019) (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)(iii) of the Policy, 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 used a privacy registration service to register a domain name corresponding to Complainant's mark, and is using the domain name to display a copy of Complainant's website, for what the Panel infers to be fraudulent purposes. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Mercedita Bautista / eName General Reseller, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Javier Santos, supra (same). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sipc.ltd> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: June 15, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page