Peer Nova, Inc. v. Jovita Reyes
Claim Number: FA2211002020639
Complainant is Peer Nova, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Aaron D. Hendelman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, California, USA. Respondent is Jovita Reyes (“Respondent”), Great Britain.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <peernovatrading.com>, registered with NameSilo, 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 November 16, 2022; Forum received payment on November 16, 2022.
On November 16, 2022, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <peernovatrading.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 November 17, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 7, 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@peernovatrading.com. Also on November 17, 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. Respondent did however send an email to the Forum, see below.
On December 14, 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, founded by entrepreneurs with deep expertise in data and financial infrastructure, it is a Silicon Valley technology company with sales offices in New York and London. Complainant’s platform enables users to monitor data quality metrics, identify high-impact exceptions, and perform faster root-cause analysis across internal and external datasets in real-time. The platform enables users to define complex lineage relationships between business workflow events, define complex data quality controls, and create custom datasets in a self-serve model. Complainant has used the PEERNOVA Mark to promote its services since at least as early as June 2015. Complainant claims rights in the PEERNOVA mark through its registration in the United States in 2019.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its PEERNOVA mark as it wholly incorporates the mark and merely adds the descriptive term “trading” and the “.com” generic top-level-domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and manipulate consumers into investing with a company wholly unrelated to Complainant. Specifically, the resolving website displays the address of Complainant’s own headquarters under a header that reads “Our Office”. Users, upon reaching the resolving website, are urged to sign up and “Earn by investing in the rapidly growing crypto market”. Moreover, the resolving website includes a link along the top and the bottom of the homepage that reads “SEC REGULATION”; when an Internet user clicks on that link, a document is displayed with the header Department of State Division of Corporations, and displays the entity name as “Peer Nova, Inc.” and the address provided is the same as Complainant’s; in fact, this document is a brazen copy of Complainant’s own New York State entity registration, which can be accessed by searching on the online corporation database of the New York State Department of State Division of Corporations; not only does this document have nothing to do with the SEC, but it is displayed on the resolving website seemingly for the sole purpose of further passing Respondent off as Complainant to inspire false confidence in Internet users who are being prompted to invest through the resolving website. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent passes off as Complainant for commercial gain. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the PEERNOVA mark prior to registering the disputed domain name. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. In its email to the Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part: “The website has been suspended and the domain will be handed over to the complainant via settlement.”
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.
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.
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."
The Panel interprets Respondent’s email to the Forum as indicating consent to transfer the disputed domain name. Thus, in the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.
See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <peernovatrading.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: December 14, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page