Tiger Global Management, LLC v. Mo Wu
Claim Number: FA2207002003867
Complainant is Tiger Global Management, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Scott Kareff of Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Mo Wu (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <tigeriglobal.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.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 12, 2022; the Forum received payment on July 14, 2022.
On July 13, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <tigeriglobal.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 July 19, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 8, 2022 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@tigeriglobal.com. Also on July 19, 2022, 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 August 15, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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
i) Complainant, Tiger Global Management, LLC is in the business of investment management. Complainant asserts rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,919,597, registered February 15, 2011). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIGER GLOBAL trademark because it contains the mark in its entirety and adds the letter “i” between “tiger” and “global”, and also adds the generic top-level domain name (“gTLD”) “.com”.
ii) Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s TIGER GLOBAL mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent also does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant while phishing for Internet users’ personal information.
iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business. Additionally, Respondent uses the disputed domain name as attraction for commercial gain by attempting to pass off as Complainant and phishing for users’ personal information. Respondent provides false contact information. Furthermore, Respondent used a privacy service to hide its identity. Finally, Respondent registered the domain name with constructive or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a response in this proceeding.
1. The disputed domain name was registered on May 31, 2022.
2. Complainant has established rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,919,597, registered February 15, 2011).
3. Respondent uses the disputed domain name as attraction for commercial gain by attempting to pass off as Complainant and phishing for users’ personal information.
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 claims rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark based upon registration with multiple trademark agencies including the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,919,597, registered February 15, 2011). Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is a valid showing of rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Since Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the TIGER GLOBAL mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <tigeriglobal.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIGER GLOBAL mark. Merely adding a letter to a mark does not distinguish it from being confusingly similar under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Additionally, adding the gTLD “.com” also does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark. The disputed domain name contains the mark in its entirety and adds the letter “i” between “tiger” and “global”, and also adds the gTLD “.com”. Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIGER GLOBAL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”).
Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s TIGER GLOBAL mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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)). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Mo Wu.” Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant contends Respondent also does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use by passing off as Complainant. Passing off as a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain name’s resolving website, where Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant. As such, the Panel finds Respondent does not provide a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Furthermore, Complainant contends Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii) by phishing for personal information. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), phishing for users’ personal or financial information does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). The Panel references the screenshots of the disputed domain name’s resolving website, where Respondent passes off as Complainant and phishes for Internet users’ personal information and payments, by convincing them Respondent is operating a legitimate business. Therefore, the Panel determines Respondent does not provide a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant argues Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith by disrupting Complainant’s business. Disruption of a complainant’s business is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant’s website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). The Panel recalls that Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant while phishing for users’ information. Thus, the Panel agrees and finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Additionally, Complainant contends that Respondent uses the disputed domain name as attraction for commercial gain by attempting to pass off as Complainant. Registration and use of a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant for commercial gain is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”). The Panel references again that Complainant’s entire mark is incorporated into the disputed domain name, and the resolving website attempts to pass off as Complainant for commercial gain. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Next, Complainant contends Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith by phishing for Internet users’ personal information and payments intended for Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name in phishing for personal and financial information of complainant’s customers supports a bad faith finding under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Maniac State, FA 608239 (Forum Jan. 19, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was using the <wellsbankupdate.com> domain name in order to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of the complainant’s customers). The Panel references that the resolving website attempts to phish for users’ information while inducing fraudulent payments. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <tigeriglobal.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist
Dated: August 17, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page