SmartContract Chainlink, Ltd. v. Lebron James
Claim Number: FA2209002010611
Complainant is SmartContract Chainlink, Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by J. Damon Ashcraft of SNELL & WILMER L.L.P, Arizona, USA. Respondent is Lebron James (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <chainlinklabs.net>, registered with eNom, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 1, 2022; Forum received payment on September 1, 2022.
On September 1, 2022, eNom, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <chainlinklabs.net> domain name is registered with eNom, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, 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 September 1, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 21, 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@chainlinklabs.net. Also on September 1, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 28, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 owns and operates an innovative and highly successful blockchain supported network, Chainlink, used by thousands of consumers around the world. Complainant has been developing the Chainlink network since June 1, 2017. Chainlink is an open-source software and the industry standard oracle network. It uses blockchain and Smart Contract technology for connecting to the world’s data. In association with the Chainlink network, Complainant has launched the cryptocurrency token LINK in December 2017. LINK is one of the top crypto currency tokens, with a market cap of over $3 billion USD, as of August 2022. Complainant has become one of the most recognizable names in the blockchain industry. Complainant claims rights in the CHAINLINK mark through its registration in the United States in 2019.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CHAINLINK mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic term “labs” and the “.org” generic top level domain (gTLD).
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain name. Respondent has not licensed or otherwise authorized Complainant to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent used the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant in an attempt to defraud unsuspecting consumers: the disputed domain resolved to a webpage impersonating Complainant, including actively and prominently displaying Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo; further, the resolving website stated “You can buy the Chainlink token (LINK) right now at launch price (up to 20% discount)”, with a “BUY LINK” button.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to confuse consumer for commercial gain, fraudulently purporting to offer Complainant’s services. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark prior to registering the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark CHAINLINK and uses it to provide services related to blockchains.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to at least 2019.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2022.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
Respondent used the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant in an attempt to defraud consumers. The resolving website mimicked Complainant’s legitimate website, displayed Complainant’s mark and logo and purported to offer Complainant’s services.
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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s CHAINLINK mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic term “labs” along with the “.org” gTLD. Adding a generic term and a gTLD is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (Finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS Information is generally sufficient in demonstrating that a Complainant is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant as “Lebron James”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent used the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant in an attempt to defraud unsuspecting consumers. Specifically, Complainant presents evidence showing that the disputed domain resolved to a webpage impersonating Complainant, displaying Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo, and purporting to offer Complainant’s services. Thus both the disputed domain name itself, and the content of the resolving website, falsely suggest that they are associated with Complainant. That is not a fair or legitimate use of the disputed domain name. Indeed, according to paragraph 2.5 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): “Fundamentally, a respondent’s use of a domain name will not be considered ‘fair’ if it falsely suggests affiliation with the trademark owner …”. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (“In effect, Respondent attempted to pass itself off as Complainant online. Such blatant unauthorized use of Complainant’s mark is evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”); see also Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Hotel Partners a/k/a eGO Inc., FA 190506 (Forum Oct. 6, 2003) (“Respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as Complainant at the disputed domain name, without authorization or license by Complainant . . . is evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”); see also Bloomberg L.P v. Bloomberg Realty (India) Private Limited, FA 1204001439263 (Forum May 30, 2012). (“Use of a domain name which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services”). Consequently the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to use the disputed domain name to make bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent used the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant in an attempt to defraud consumers. This is evidence of bad faith registration and use under 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.”); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see also Carey Int’l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) (“[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith”). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving website displayed Complainant’s mark and logo. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); 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). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes 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 <chainlinklabs.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: September 29, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page