HDR Global Trading Limited v. MDTCOIN GLOBAL LIMITED / SHUNA DONG
Claim Number: FA2306002051358
Complainant is HDR Global Trading Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Mary D. Hallerman of SNELL & WILMER L.L.P, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is MDTCOIN GLOBAL LIMITED / SHUNA DONG (“Respondent”), Maryland, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bmexcoins.com>, registered with NameSilo, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 29, 2023; Forum received payment on June 29, 2023.
On June 29, 2023, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bmexcoins.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 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 e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@bmexcoins.com. Also on July 3, 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 July 27, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant, HDR Global Trading Limited is in the cryptocurrency business.
Complainant asserts rights in the BITMEX and BMEX marks based upon registration with the multiple national trademark registries worldwide including the USPTO.
Respondent’s <bmexcoins.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITMEX and BMEX trademarks because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the descriptive term “coins”, and the generic top-level domain name (“gTLD”) “.com” to form.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <bmexcoins.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s BITMEX and BMEX marks and is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. 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 at-issue domain name to offer competing cryptocurrency services. Additionally, Respondent uses the domain name to pass off as Complainant.
Respondent registered and uses the <bmexcoins.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered and uses the at-issue domain name to compete with Complainant. Respondent registered and uses the domain name to pass off as Complainant. Respondent failed to respond to a cease and desist letter, showing bad faith registration and use. Additionally, there is no plausible legitimate use of the at-issue domain name by Respondent. Finally, Respondent registered and uses the <bmexcoins.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BITMEX mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in the BITMEX and BMEX marks.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the BITMEX and BMEX trademark.
Respondent’s uses the at-issue domain name pose as Complainant and offer services that compete with 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Any of Complainant’s national trademark registrations for the BITMEX and BMEX marks may act as conclusive evidence of Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Sanlam Life Insurance Limited v. Syed Hussain / Domain Management MIC, FA 1787219 (Forum June 15, 2018) (“Registration of a mark with the EUIPO, a government agency, sufficiently confers a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also, Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the HOME DEPOT mark); see also, Häfele Vietnam LLC v. Cong Hoan, FA 1813668 (Forum Nov. 28, 2018) (“Registration of a mark with the WIPO sufficiently confers a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <bmexcoins.com> domain name contains Complainant’s BMEX trademark followed by the term “coins” and with all followed by the “.com” top-level domain name. The differences between Complainant’s trademark and Respondent’s at-issue domain name fail to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <bmexcoins.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BMEX trademark. See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the <bmexcoins.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and “Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.”).
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name shows that the domain name’s registrant is “MDTCOIN GLOBAL LIMITED / SHUNA DONG” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by the <bmexcoins.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that displays Complainant’s trademark and images and offers cryptocurrency services that competed with Complainant’s services. Respondent’s use of <bmexcoins.com> in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Dan Stanley Saturne, FA 1785085 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use” where “Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name to offer for sale competing services.”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
As discussed below without being exhaustive, bad faith circumstances are present which allow the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First, Respondent uses <bmexcoins.com> to deceive internet users into believing that the domain name and website are sponsored by or associated with Complainant. Respondent’s <bmexcoins.com> website displays Complainant’s trademark and images and offers services that compete with Complainant’s cryptocurrency services. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name to attract internet users and capitalize on their confusion by offering services competing with Complainant demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Spark Networks PLC v. Houlihan, FA 653476 (Forum Apr. 18, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s registration of a domain name substantially similar to the complainant’s AMERICAN SINGLES mark in order to operate a competing online dating website supported a finding that respondent registered and used the domain name to disrupt the complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also, ShipCarsNow, Inc. v. Wet Web Design LLC, FA1501001601260 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015) (“Respondent’s use of the domain name to sell competing services shows that Respondent is attempting to commercially benefit from a likelihood of confusion. Therefore the Panel finds that a likelihood of confusion exists, that Respondent is attempting to commercially benefit from Complainant’s mark, and that Complainant has rights that predate any rights of the Respondent, all of which constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BMEX mark when it registered <bmexcoins.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademark is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BMEX mark and from Respondent’s use of the domain name to pose as Complainant and offer services that compete with Complainant’s offering. Registering and using <bmexcoins.com>with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in BMEX, in itself, shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). 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); see also, Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (“Complainant contends Respondent’s appropriation of Complainant’s trademark was a clear intent to trade upon Complainant’s reputation and goodwill in order to confuse Internet users. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark prior to registration and this constitutes bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); 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).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bmexcoins.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: July 28, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page