Ignite International, Ltd. v. Gjergj Alia
Claim Number: FA2210002015794
Complainant is Ignite International, Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by J. Coy Stull of Carlton Fields, P.A., Florida, USA. Respondent is Gjergj Alia (“Respondent”), Austria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ignitecbdcrypto.com>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with NameCheap, Inc..
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.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 12, 2022; Forum received payment on October 12, 2022.
On October 12, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ignitecbdcrypto.com> 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 October 14, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 3, 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@ignitecbdcrypto.com. Also on October 14, 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 November 9, 2022 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the mark IGNITE registered in the USA for smoking products since 2019. It owns ignitecbd.co.
The Domain Name registered in 2022 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark adding only the generic terms ‘cbd’ and ‘crypto’ and the gTLD .com which do not prevent said confusing similarity.
The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorized by the Complainant.
The Domain Name has been used for a web site offering competing products using the Complainant’s IGNITE mark in its official font, copying material from the Complainant’s site and using the Complainants address appearing to be an official web site of the Complainant, also fraudulently purporting to sell the Complainant’s products for cryptocurrency. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial or legitimate fair use.
It is registration and use in opportunistic bad faith misleading Internet users for commercial gain and disrupting the Complainant’s business. The fact that the Respondent’s site uses the Complainant’s mark in its logo form and refers to the Complainant’s address and bears material copied from the Complainant’s site shows the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its rights and business.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the mark IGNITE registered in the USA for smoking products since 2019. It owns ignitecbd.co.
The Domain Name registered in 2022 has been used for a site purporting to offer the Complainant’s products using the Complainant’s IGNITE mark in its official font, copies of material from the Complainant’s site and the Complainant’s address appearing to be an official site of the Complainant.
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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant's IGNITE mark (which is registered in USA for smoking products with first use recorded as 2019), the generic terms ‘cbd’ and ‘crypto’ and the gTLD .com.
Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds generic terms to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000)(finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic terms ‘cbd’ and ‘crypto’ to the Complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's registered trade mark for the purposes of the Policy.
The gTLD .com does not serve to prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Nat Arb Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4 (a) (i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 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 use is commercial and so cannot be noncommercial legitimate fair use.
The web site attached to the Domain Name uses the Complainant's IGNITE mark in its official font to offer competing goods and goods using material copied from the Complainant’s site and the Complainant’s address so that the web site appears to be an official site of the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is deceptive. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. (See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to compete with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.)
The Respondent has not responded to this Complaint to counteract the prima facie case put forward by the Complainant as set out herein.
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent’s site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it offers competing products under the Complainant’s IGNITE mark in its official font, using material copied from the Complainant’s web site and its address giving the impression that the site attached to the Domain Name is official. The use of the Complainant’s font, reference to the Complainant’s address and material copied from the Complainant’s site shows that the Respondent has actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business, products and rights.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or products on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. (See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use).
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ignitecbdcrypto.com> Domain Name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: November 9, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page