DECISION

 

SmartContract Chainlink, Ltd. v. Jim Louis

Claim Number: FA2404002092670

 

PARTIES

Complainant is SmartContract Chainlink, Ltd. ("Complainant"), represented by J. Damon Ashcraft of SNELL & WILMER L.L.P, Arizona, USA. Respondent is Jim Louis ("Respondent"), Ohio, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <chainlinkjournal.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 10, 2024. Forum received payment on April 10, 2024.

 

On April 10, 2024, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <chainlinkjournal.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 April 11, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 1, 2024 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@chainlinkjournal.com. Also on April 11, 2024, 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 May 2, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, SmartContract Chainlink, Ltd., owns and operates an innovative and highly successful blockchain supported network, Chainlink®, used by thousands of consumers around the world. 

 

Complainant has rights in the distinctive and well-known CHAINLINK and blue hexagon CHAINLINK logo marks through numerous trademark registrations, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). Respondent's <chainlinkjournal.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks. The domain name has caused actual confusion.

 

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <chainlinkjournal.com> domain name since Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's marks and there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by that name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name to impersonate Complainant in an attempt to defraud unsuspecting consumers.

 

Respondent registered the <chainlinkjournal.com> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the CHAINLINK word and logo marks and uses it in bad faith to resolve to a webpage prominently displaying both marks, intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to its website and take advantage of Complainant's goodwill. Finally, a cease-and-desist letter sent by Complainant remained unanswered, indicating bad faith on the part of Respondent.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.

 

DISCUSSION

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 the domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(i)                      the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii)                      Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii)                      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 as 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').

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has shown that it has rights inter alia in the CHAINLINK and blue hexagon CHAINLINK logo marks through numerous registrations, including with the USPTO (e.g., CHAINLINK word, Reg. No. 5,694,500, registered on March 12, 2019 and CHAINLINK logo, Reg. No. 6,348,792, registered on May 11, 2021). The Panel finds Respondent's <chainlinkjournal.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's CHAINLINK word and logo marks, only differing by the absence of the hexagon logo and the addition of the descriptive word "journal", which do nothing to distinguish the domain name from the marks. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.

 

(i)         before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii)         Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)         Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

The <chainlinkjournal.com> domain name was registered on May 6, 2022, some three years after Complainant registered its well-known CHAINLINK word mark and one year after it registered its logo mark. It resolves to a website prominently displaying Complainant's CHAINLINK word and logo marks, most notably in its title CHAINLINK JOURNAL, and providing cryptocurrency information and news stories of the kind provided by Complainant on its website "https://chain.link".

 

These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <chainlinkjournal.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:

(iv)        by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant's well-known CHAINLINK word and logo marks when Respondent registered the <chainlinkjournal.com> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <chainlinkjournal.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: May 3, 2024