HDR Global Trading Limited v. Repossessed by Go Daddy
Claim Number: FA2306002051345
Complainant is HDR Global Trading Limited ("Complainant"), represented by Mary D. Hallerman of Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Repossessed by Go Daddy ("Respondent"), Arizona, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bitmex.vip>, registered with Go Canada Domains, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 29, 2023; Forum received payment on June 29, 2023.
On June 30, 2023, Go Canada Domains, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <bitmex.vip> domain name is registered with Go Canada Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Go Canada Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Canada Domains, 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 July 3, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 24, 2023 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@bitmex.vip. Also on July 3, 2023, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 July 27, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 owns and operates a cryptocurrency trading platform. Complainant states that it is one of the largest such platforms in the world, with an average trading volume of at least several hundred million dollars per day. Complainant has used the BITMEX mark since 2014 in connection with financial trading platform services. Complainant owns trademark registrations for BITMEX in standard character form in the European Union, China, and other jurisdictions, along with registrations for related design marks.
Respondent is the registrant of the disputed domain name <bitmex.vip>, which was registered in April 2023. The domain name initially was used for a website displaying Complainant's BITMEX mark and logo and offering or purporting to offer cryptocurrency trading services. The domain name currently does not resolve to a website. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, is not sponsored or endorsed by Complainant, and is not authorized or licensed to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <bitmex.vip> is identical or confusingly similar to its BITMEX mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was 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."
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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <bitmex.vip> corresponds to Complainant's registered BITMEX trademark, with the ".vip" top-level domain appended thereto. The addition of a top-level domain is normally disregarded for purposes of assessing identicality or confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., HDR Global Trading Ltd. v. Cater Tom / Han Zhong Zheng Qi Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si, FA 2021742 (Forum Dec. 22, 2022) (finding <bitmexdao.vip> confusingly similar to BITMEX); HDR Global Trading Ltd. v. Feu Li, FA 1999082 (Forum July 18, 2022) (finding <bitmex.sbs> identical or confusingly similar to BITMEX); HDR Global Trading Ltd. v. Yang Hang, FA 1992108 (Forum May 12, 2022) (finding <bitmex.pet> identical and confusingly similar to BITMEX); HDR Global Trading Ltd. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, FA 1849606 (Forum July 29, 2019) (finding <bitmex.capital> identical to BITMEX). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Respondent does not appear to be making any active use of the domain name. The only apparent prior use of the domain name is for a website that attempted to pass off as Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., HDR Global Trading Ltd. v. Client Care / Web Commerce Communications Ltd., FA 2035750 (Forum Apr. 12, 2023) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); HDR Global Trading Ltd. v. Feu Li, supra (same); HDR Global Trading Ltd. v. Yang Hang, supra (same).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered a domain name corresponding to Complainant's registered mark, and the only apparent use of the name has been for a website that attempted to pass off as Complainant and promote competing services. Respondent has failed to come forward with any explanation for its selection or use of the domain name. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., HDR Global Trading Ltd. v. Client Care / Web Commerce Communications Ltd., supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); HDR Global Trading Ltd. v. Feu Li, supra (same); HDR Global Trading Ltd. v. Yang Hang, supra (same). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bitmex.vip> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: July 27, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page