Tiger Global Management, LLC v. Ricardo Quaresma
Claim Number: FA2305002042965
Complainant is Tiger Global Management, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Scott Kareff of Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Ricardo Quaresma (“Respondent”), Turkey.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <tigerglobal.network>, registered with Porkbun 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.
The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 3, 2023; Forum received payment on May 4, 2023.
On May 3, 2023; May 05, 2023, Porkbun Llc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <tigerglobal.network> domain name is registered with Porkbun Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Porkbun Llc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Porkbun 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 May 9, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 30, 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@tigerglobal.network. Also on May 9, 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 June 2, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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 made the following contentions.
Complainant is a registered investment advisor. Complainant is headquartered in New York, NY. It has a license from its associated company Tiger Management L.L.C., the owner of the U.S. and international trademark registrations for the mark TIGER GLOBAL (the “Tiger Global Mark”) to use the TIGER GLOBAL trademark in its business, which it does. Complainant therefore has rights in the mark by virtue of the license granted by Tiger Management L.L.C. Accordingly, Complainant has rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark through Tiger Management L.L.C.’s registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 3,919,587, registered February 15, 2011); See Compl. Annex A. Respondent’s <tigerglobal.network> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIGER GLOBAL mark as it incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely adds the “.network generic top-level-domain name ("gTLD").
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <tigerglobal.network> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the TIGER GLOBAL mark. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as Respondent passes off as Complainant by copying Complainant’s website with the intent to defraud individuals in a phishing scheme.
Respondent registered and uses the <tigerglobal.network> domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business while passing off as Complainant and creating confusion among users for commercial gain. Additionally, Respondent phishes for users personal information. Furthermore, Respondent provides false contact information while hiding its identity with a privacy shield. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. Complainant is a United States company that is a registered investment. advisor.
2. Complainant has established its rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark through Tiger Management L.L.C.’s registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 3,919,587, registered February 15, 2011) and Tiger Management L.L.C.’s license to Complainant to use the mark in its business.
3. Respondent registered the <tigerglobal.network> domain name on March 2, 2023.
4. Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark, provided false contact information and used the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and to phish for users’ personal information.
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 first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. Complainant submits that it has rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark through the registration of the mark with the United States Trademark and Patent Office ( “USPTO”) by Tiger Management L.L.C.,(e.g. Reg. No. 3,919,587, registered February 15, 2011) See Compl. Annex A. . The evidence is that Tiger Management L.L.C has granted Complainant the right to use the mark in its business, which it does. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of Tiger Management L.L.C .’s registration of the mark and its license to Complainant to use it.
The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIGER GLOBAL mark. Complainant argues that Respondent’s <tigerglobal.network> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIGER GLOBAL mark as it incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely adds the “.network” gTLD. The addition of a gTLD fails to distinguish a disputed domain name sufficiently from a mark per 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.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
It is now well established that 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)).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations:
(a) Respondent has chosen to take Complainant’s TIGER GLOBAL trademark and to use it in its domain name, incorporating the mark and adding the “.network” gTLD which does not negate the confusing similarity between the domain name and the trademark;
(b) Respondent registered the <tigerglobal.network> domain name on March 2, 2023;
(c) Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark, provided false contact information and used the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and to phish for users’ personal information.
(d) Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or approval of Complainant;
(e) Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <tigerglobal.network> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Complainant authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark. When 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 Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same). 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 Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Ricardo Quaresma” and Complainant submits that there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the TIGER GLOBAL mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);
(f) Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the <tigerglobal.network> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent passes itself off as Complainant and uses the domain name to phish for user’s personal information. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant for the purpose of confusing users and furthering a phishing scheme may not be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See ShipChain, Inc. v. 谢东东 / 谢东东, FA 1785189 (Forum June 21, 2018) (“The resolving webpages between Complainant’s and Respondent’s websites are virtually the same. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not confer rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) and (iii).”). Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain name resolving to a website that is nearly identical to Complainant’s legitimate website. Compare Compl. Annex B and F. Additionally, Complainant argues that the member login section on Respondent’s resolving website could be used to phish for users’ personal information. See Compl. Annex F. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.
It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and has been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons.
First, Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the <tigerglobal.network> domain name in bad faith as Respondent registered the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and to phish for users’ personal information for Respondent’s financial gain. Registration of a confusingly similar domain name with the intent to disrupt Complainant’s business by passing off as a complainant to confuse and mislead users can evince bad faith registration and use of the domain name per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”). The Panel recalls that Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent’s disputed domain name resolving to a website that is nearly identical to Complainant’s legitimate website, potentially misleading users to enter personal information as a part of a phishing scheme. See Compl. Annex F. Complainant argues that users could be induced to send money based on the false pretense that Respondent is Complainant. As the Panel agrees, it finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Secondly, Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the <tigerglobal.network> domain name in bad faith by engaging in phishing. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), using a disputed domain name to engage in phishing is evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Emdeon Business Services, LLC v. HR Emdeon Careers, FA1507001629459 (Forum Aug. 14, 2015) (finding that the respondent had engaged in an email phishing scheme indicating bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), where respondent was coordinating the disputed domain name to send emails to Internet users and advising them that they had been selected for a job interview with the complainant and was persuading the users to disclose personal information in the process). Here, Complainant contends that Respondent may attempt to use the confusingly similar domain name to impersonate Complainant in order to phish for users’ personal information. See Compl. Annex F. As the Panel agrees, it finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Thirdly, Complainant argues that Respondent’s bad faith is further demonstrated by its use of a privacy shield. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), use of a privacy shield to hide one’s identity may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Robert Half International Inc. v. robert arran, FA 1764367 (Forum Feb. 5. 2018) (“Respondent's use of a privacy registration service in an attempt to conceal his identity, though not itself dispositive, is a further indication of bad faith.”). The Panel notes that Respondent’s identity was initially hidden by use of a privacy shield. See WHOIS information. Therefore, as the Panel agrees, it finds that Respondent’s use of a privacy shield is evidence of its registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Fourthly, Complainant contends that Respondent registered the <tigerglobal.network> domain name with actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark. Actual knowledge is sufficient in proving bad faith registration and use of a disputed domain name. See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name"). Complainant submits that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s TIGER GLOBAL mark in its entirety is evidence of bad faith. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s right in its mark when it registered the domain name, which supports a finding of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <tigerglobal.network> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC,
Panelist
Dated: June 14, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page