The Optimism Foundation v. Margaret Clark
Claim Number: FA2303002034051
Complainant is The Optimism Foundation (“Complainant”), represented by Matthew Passmore of Cobalt LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Margaret Clark (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <optimistm.com> (“Domain Name”), registered with Hostinger, UAB.
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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 1, 2023; Forum received payment on March 1, 2023.
On March 2, 2023, Hostinger, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <optimistm.com> domain name is registered with Hostinger, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hostinger, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hostinger, UAB 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 March 2, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 22, 2023 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@optimistm.com. Also on March 2, 2023, 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 March 30, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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, The Optimism Foundation, develops open-source software applications used in conjunction with the Ethereum blockchain to facilitate access to the blockchain and to other financial transactions on the Internet. Complainant claims rights in the OPTIMISM mark through its application for registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Serial No. 90,549,900 filed February 26, 2021). Complainant also claims common law rights in the OPTIMISM mark based upon continuous and widespread use, as well as widespread consumer recognition. Respondent’s <optimistm.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the OPTIMISM mark as it merely misspells the mark and adds a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <optimistm.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s OPTIMISM mark and is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the Domain Name to pass off as Complainant in the furtherance of a phishing scheme.
Respondent registered and uses the <optimistm.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the Domain Name in order to pass off as Complainant to perpetuate a phishing scheme for commercial gain. Furthermore, Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the OPTIMISM mark prior to registration of the Domain Name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the OPTIMISM mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s OPTIMISM mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name 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."
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 OPTIMISM mark through its application with the USPTO and through common law rights. The Panel notes that generally a pending trademark application is insufficient to demonstrate rights in a mark. See Jireh Industries Ltd. v. DVLPMNT MARKETING, INC. / Domain Administrator, FA 1719671 (Forum Apr. 14, 2017) (“Pending trademark applications do not confer rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
It is therefore necessary to consider whether Complainant holds common law rights in the OPTIMISM mark as Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require a complainant to hold a registered trademark if it can demonstrate established common law rights in the mark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017). To establish common law rights in a mark, a complainant generally must prove that the mark has generated a secondary meaning. See Goodwin Procter LLP v. Amritpal Singh, FA 1736062 (Forum July 18, 2017) (holding that the complainant demonstrated its common law rights in the GOODWIN mark through evidence of “long time continuous use of the mark, significant related advertising expenditures, as well as other evidence of the mark’s having acquired secondary meaning.”). While Complainant has only been founded relatively recently, the Panel is satisfied from Complainant’s evidence (including evidence of marketing, third party media coverage, use as a business name and its reputation in the cryptocurrency community, including recent series B fundraising) that Complainant’s use of the OPTIMISM mark for its blockchain technology is sufficient to establish secondary meaning in that mark and hence Complainant has common law rights in the OPTIMISM mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that the <optimistm.com> domain name is confusing similar to Complainant’s OPTIMISM mark as it consists of a minor misspelling of the OPTIMISM mark, adding a “t” and then adding the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Misspelling a mark and adding a gTLD is insufficient to negate confusing similarity between a domain name and the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Western Alliance Bancorporation v. James Brandon, FA 1783001 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“Respondent’s <westernalliancebcorporation.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WESTERN ALLIANCE BANCORPORATION mark because it merely appends the gTLD ‘.info’ to a misspelled version of Complainant’s mark.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the OPTIMISM mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. 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)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “Margaret Clark” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Name resolves to a website (“Respondent’s Website”) that reproduces Complainant’s OPTIMISM marks as well as closely resembling the design and lay-out of Complainant’s official website at www.optimisim.io. This website makes reference to Complainant’s blockchain services and includes a button that invites uses to “Connect wallet” which appears to be an attempt to encourage users who had visited the Respondent’s Website under the misapprehension that they were visiting the Complainant’s website to provide details of their bitcoin wallet to Respondent which could be used to allow Respondent to gain access to their cryptocurrency account and commit fraud on those consumers. Such conduct is best characterized as “phishing”. Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to impersonate Complainant for the purpose of engaging in a phishing scheme to acquire confidential information is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Caroline Alves Maia, FA 1796113 (Forum Aug. 6, 2018) (finding the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the domain name because it used the name to resolve to a website virtually identical to the complainant’s to prompt users to enter their login information so that the respondent may gain access to that customer’s cryptocurrency account); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. ruth weinstein, FA 1770352 (Forum Mar. 7, 2018) (“Use of a disputed domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as a complainant and to conduct a phishing scheme is indicative of a failure to use said domain name in connection with a bona fide offer of goods and services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or otherwise fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that at the time Respondent registered the Domain Name, January 27, 2023, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s OPTIMISM mark. There is no obvious reason (and none has been provided) as to why an entity would register the Domain Name containing the OPTIMISM mark and redirect it to a website which reproduces the OPTIMISM mark, the design of Complainant’s official website and invites visitors to provide their bitcoin wallet details other than to deceive Internet users into believing an affiliation exists between Complainant and Respondent. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent uses or has used the Domain Name to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Use of a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Google Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1506001622862 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent’s apparent use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a ‘phishing’ scheme further established its bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(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 <optimistm.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: March 31, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page