Cboe Global Markets, Inc. and Eris Digital Holdings, LLC v. the / aub
Claim Number: FA2303002036090
Complainant is Cboe Global Markets, Inc. and Eris Digital Holdings, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Kevin M. Bovard of Baker & Hostetler LLP, USA. Respondent is the / aub (“Respondent”), Hong Kong.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <erisxthe.com> and <erisxaub.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 16, 2023; Forum received payment on March 16, 2023.
On March 17, 2023, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <erisxthe.com> and <erisxaub.com> domain names are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 17, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 6, 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@erisxthe.com, postmaster@erisxaub.com. Also on March 17, 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 April 11, 2023, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS
Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that “[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
There are two Complainants in this matter: Cboe Global Markets, Inc. and Eris Digital Holdings, LLC. Complainants states that, in May 2022, ErisX was acquired by Cboe and has been integrated into Cboe’s core business.
Previous panels have interpreted the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:
It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.
In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark.
The Panel finds that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants, and thus it will treat them as a single entity in this proceeding.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
The Panel finds that the domain names are under common control as the websites displayed at these domains appear to be identical and the WHOIS address and contact phone number are identical. This is sufficient to find that the domain names were registered by the same domain name holder. See The Valspar Corporation v. Zhou Zhiliang / zhouzhiliang / Zhiliang Zhou / Eric Chow / Visspa Ltd., FA100800133934 (Forum Sept. 28, 2010); see also BBY Solutions, Inc. v. White Apple / Dev Kumar, FA1805001787251 (Forum June 20, 2018).
Consequently, the Panel will rule on both contested domain names, and the two registrants are collectively referred to as “Respondent”.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it is one of the most highly-regarded securities and derivatives exchanges in the United States and throughout the world. It offers trading internationally across a diverse range of products in multiple asset classes and geographies, including options, futures, U.S. and European equities, exchange-traded products, global foreign exchange, and digital asset financial services. Complainant has rights in the ERISX mark through its registration in the United States in 2020. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world, including in Hong Kong.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its ERISX mark as they include the entire mark and merely add random letters and a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s ERISX mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving websites display Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo and purport to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. The resolving websites purport to offer competing services. Respondent uses the disputed domain names to pass off as Complainant and to attempt to steal money and personal information. Respondent registered the disputed domain names with false or incomplete WHOSE information. Respondent had and constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ERISX mark prior to registering the disputed domain names. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the mark ERISX dating back to 2020 and uses it to operate a securities and derivatives exchange, including digital asset financial services.
The disputed domain names were registered in 2022 and 2023.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The resolving websites display Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo and purports to offer services that compete with those of 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 disputed domain names incorporate Complainant’s ERISX mark in its entirety and merely add random letters and a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). When a disputed domain name wholly incorporates another’s mark, additional letters have been found insufficient to defeat a finding of confusing similarity. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters ‘sb’ and the digits ‘2018,’ plus the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) ‘.com.’ These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy.”); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Sergey Valerievich Kireev / Kireev, FA 1784651 (Forum June 5, 2018) (holding that the domain name consists of the BITTREX mark and adds “the letters ‘btc’ and the gTLD .com which do not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark.”); see also Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.”). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its ERISX mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1408001574905 (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). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant as “the / aub”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving websites purport to offer services that compete with Complainant’s own offerings. A respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to offer goods or services that compete with those of a complainant has been found not to satisfy Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Invesco Ltd. v. Premanshu Rana, FA 1733167 (Forum July 10, 2017) (“Use of a domain name to divert Internet users to a competing website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”); see also Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent’s own website for commercial gain does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Complainant alleges that Respondent uses the disputed domain names to phish for consumers’ information in furtherance of fraud. To support this allegation, it correctly notes that the resolving websites include a login page. However, users would not necessarily mistake that login page for Complainant’s legitimate login page. Complainant does not provide any evidence showing that the disputed domain names were used in furtherance of fraud. Therefore the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proof for this allegation and will not further discuss it.
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 names.
Indeed, as already noted, the resolving websites purport to offer competing services. When a respondent uses a disputed domain name to offer goods or services that compete with those offered by a complainant, Panels have determined that a respondent acts in bad faith to disrupt a complainant’s business pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv). See LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, FA1762308 (Forum January 9, 2018) (Finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer competing loan services disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <saflock.com> domain name to offer goods competing with the complainant’s illustrates the respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name, evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b) (iii) and/or (iv).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving websites displays Complainant’s mark and distinctive 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).
Finally, the WHOIS information is false: the address is shown as: “Street: hongkong; City: hongkong”, which is clearly not a valid address. This can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CNU ONLINE Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1504001614972 (Forum May 29, 2015) (“As the Panel sees that Respondent has provided false or misleading WHOIS information, the Panel finds bad faith in Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd v. Global Mgr, FA 1702001716963 (Forum Mar. 30, 2017) (“Complainant contends that Respondent provided false contact information while registering the disputed domain. Registering a confusingly similar domain name using false contact information can evince bad faith registration.”); see also j2 Global Canada, Inc. and Landslide Technologies, Inc. v. Vijay S Kumar/Strategic Outsourcing Services Pvt Ltd, FA 1411001647718 (Forum Jan. 4, 2016) (“False or misleading contact information indicates bad faith registration and use.”); see also Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Phillip Thomas/Chevron Pacific, FA 1504001615524 (Forum May 29, 2015) (“Complainant’s use of false registration data and its unexplained redirection of the disputed domain name to Complainant’s own website are further indications of such bad faith.”); see also McDonald’s Corp. v. Holy See, FA 0304000155458 (Forum June 27, 2003) (“The Panel finds that Respondent provided false contact information in the registration certificates and that such actions, even though not specifically enumerated in the Policy, may form the basis for a finding of bad faith registration and use.”); see also Mars, Incorporated v. RaveClub Berlin, FA 0106000097361 (Forum July 16, 2001) (providing false registration and contact information for infringing domain names evidenced Respondent’s bad faith). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name 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 <erisxthe.com> and <erisxaub.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: April 12, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page