HDR Global Trading Limited v. Zameer Momin
Claim Number: FA2209002014081
Complainant is HDR Global Trading Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Mary D. Hallerman of SNELL & WILMER L.L.P, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Zameer Momin (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME(s)
The domain name at issue is <bitmexearn.com>, registered with Sav.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 Forum electronically on September 29, 2022; Forum received payment on September 29, 2022.
On September 30, 2022, Sav.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bitmexearn.com> domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Sav.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Sav.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 October 5, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 25, 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@bitmexearn.com. Also on October 5, 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 October 31, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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
i) Complainant offers digitalized asset and cryptocurrency financial trading services. Complainant claims rights in the BITMEX mark through its registration with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 016462327, registered August 11, 2017). Through its widespread use in commerce, Complainant has acquired extensive rights and goodwill in the BITMEX marks and the BITMEX domain. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITMEX mark as it wholly incorporates the mark and merely adds the descriptive word “earn” and “.com” gTLD.
ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its BITMEX mark in the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale for $13,799.
iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith by seeking to capitalize on Complainant’s long-standing, well-known, and distinctive BITMEX mark. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BITMEX mark before its registration of the disputed domain name and offers the disputed domain name for sale for an amount far in excess of the out-of-pocket registration fee.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a response in this proceeding.
1. The disputed domain name was registered on December 8, 2021.
2. Complainant has established rights in the BITMEX mark through its registration under its subsidiary’ name HDR SG PTE. LTD. with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 016462327, registered August 11, 2017).
3. The disputed domain name remains inactive.
4. The disputed domain name resolves to a “for sale” webpage offering it for $13,799.
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 BITMEX mark through its registration of the mark with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 016462327, registered August 11, 2017). Registration with the EUIPO is generally sufficient in demonstrating rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel notes that Complainant provides evidence of its registration in the name of “HDR SG PTE. LTD.” with the EUIPO while stating it is a subsidiary of Complainant. The Panel considers and accepts that a trademark owner’s affiliate such as a subsidiary of a parent or of a holding company has rights in a trademark under the UDRP for purposes of standing to file a complaint. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0,” Section 1.4.1). Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has rights in the BITMEX mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant next argues that the disputed domain name <bitmexearn.com> is confusingly similar to the BITMEX mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and only adds the descriptive word “earn” and the “.com” gTLD. The use of a mark in its entirety with the mere addition of a descriptive term or a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Marquette Golf Club v. Al Perkins, FA 1738263 (FORUM July 27, 2017) (“When a respondent’s domain name incorporates a mark in its entirety and merely adds a generic top-level domain (gTLD), “.com”, then the Panel may find that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark.”); The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (FORUM June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per 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 lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent has not been sponsored or endorsed by, or authorized or licensed to use its BITMEX mark; the disputed domain name was registered under a privacy service; and the disputed domain name is being offered for sale.
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, FA 1613011 (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, FA 1574905 (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 Panel notes that the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Zameer Momin.” Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Complainant specifically points out that the disputed domain name remains inactive and resolves to a “for sale” webpage offering it for $13,799. The Panel notes that the use of the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known mark to sell it for the amount of out-of-pocket expense does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate non-commercial or fair use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Huang Jia Lin, FA 1614086 (FORUM May 25, 2015) (“Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s general attempt to sell the disputed domain name is further evidence of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
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 names.
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent is offering to sell the disputed domain name, and a general offer for sale may be sufficient to establish registration and use in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Airbnb, Inc. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, FA 1821386 (FORUM Jan. 10, 2019) (“Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <airbnbb.com> domain name in bad faith by offering it for sale. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”). Further, the offer is for a price far in excess of the out-of-pocket registration fee. An offer to sell a disputed domain name with an inflated price may act as further evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Wang Liqun, FA 1625332 (FORUM July 17, 2015) (“A respondent’s general offer to sell a disputed domain name for an excess of out-of-pocket costs is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”); see also Retail Royalty Company and AE Direct Co LLC v. Whois Foundation / DOMAIN MAY BE FOR SALE, CHECK AFTERNIC.COM Domain Admin, FA 1821246 (FORUM Jan. 13, 2019) (“Respondent lists the disputed domain name for sale for $5,759, which is a price well in excess of out of pocket costs. Such an offering can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”).
Complainant has provided a screenshot of the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage offering the disputed domain name for $13,799. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Complainant further contends that that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in BITMEX mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name because of Complainant’s international presence and pervasiveness in the cryptocurrency financial services market. The Panel infers, due to the notoriety of Complainant’s mark and the manner of use of the disputed domain name that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BITMEX mark at the time of its registering the disputed domain name, and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain 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 <bitmexearn.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist
Dated: November 5, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page