NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

DECISION

Zcash Foundation v. Linov Danil

Claim Number: FA2502002140765

PARTIES

Complainant is Zcash Foundation ("Complainant"), represented by Kelley S. Gordon of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Linov Danil ("Respondent"), Russian Federation.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <zcash.press>, registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU 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.

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 18, 2025; Forum received payment on February 18, 2025.

On February 20, 2025, Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <zcash.press> domain name is registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU 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 February 21, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Russian and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 13, 2025 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@zcash.press. Also on February 21, 2025, the Russian and English 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 in Russian and English.

On March 14, 2025, 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.

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: Language of Proceeding

Complainant has submitted that the administrative proceeding be conducted in the English language pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a). That Rule provides that the language of the proceeding is to be the language of the registration agreement relating to the domain name at issue, unless the Panel determines that it should be a different language having regard to the circumstances of the proceeding. Complainant makes this request in light of the Russian language Registration Agreement. It is also the established practice to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties. Previous panels have consistently said that they should take into account all relevant circumstances before making their decision. See The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, D2009-0610 (WIPO July 1, 2009) (panel exercising discretion in deciding that the language of the proceedings advance in English, contrary to the Registration Agreement, based on evidence that respondent has command of the language). Further, the Panel may weigh the relative time and expense in enforcing the Russian language agreement, which would result in prejudice toward either party. See Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006) (deciding that the proceeding should be in English, stating, "It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.").

In that regard, the Complainant submits that the Respondent probably has the ability to understand and converse in English, such that conducting the proceeding in English will not prejudice Respondent.

Complainant submits the following circumstances demonstrate the appropriateness of proceeding in English: (i) The Disputed Domain Name wholly contains English words and characters; (ii) the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an English language website and directs visitors to visit another website which is also an English language website; and (iii) the Respondent's conduct and operations website target English speaking -consumers which also demonstrates Respondent's proficiency in English; and (iv) Complainant does not speak Russian and translating these documents would put Complainant at a disadvantage and would delay this proceeding.

The Panel finds that the evidence shows that the Respondent has facility with the English language and that it is appropriate that the proceeding be conducted in English. The Panel therefore agrees with the submissions proposing that the language of the proceeding should in all the circumstances be English and finds that they are supported by the evidence.

The Panel therefore decides that the proceeding should be conducted in the English language.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant made the following contentions.

1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of a cryptocurrency called Zcash that allows its users to achieve financial privacy by encrypting sender, amount and recipient data in a single-signature transaction and it has been so engaged since 2016.

2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for ZCASH. In particular, the evidence will establish that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the ZCASH trademark by virtue of its registration of that trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, registration number 5,361,134, registered on December 19, 2017 and other trademarks for ZCASH (collectively "the ZCASH trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services.

3. The ZCASH trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services.

4. As well as its trademark, the Complainant has registered the domain names <z.cash> and <zfnd.org> that it uses in its business and in particular for its website at www.z.cash where it markets its products under the ZCASH trademark and brand.

5. The Respondent registered the <zcash.press> domain name on August 8, 2024 ("the disputed domain name").

6. The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the ZCASH trademark with the addition of the generic Top Level Domain ".press".

7. The disputed domain name is identical to the ZCASH trademark.

8. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. That is so because:

(b) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);

(c) the Respondent has failed to discharge its duty to select, register and use a domain name that does not infringe the rights of a third party;

(e) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be shown that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name under the Policy or otherwise.

9. The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. That is so because:

(a) the Respondent has used the domain name to disrupt the Complainant's business within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii);

(b) the Respondent has passed itself off as the Complainant through using the ZCASH trademark and its attempts to prompt internet users to use the Respondent's Lumenite cryptocurrency and to visit www.lumenite.com;

(c) the Respondent has used the domain name to generate confusion between its website and the Complainant's official and genuine website within the meaning of Policy ¶4(b)(iv) for financial gain;

(d) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant, its name and trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name; and

(e) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances to be revealed by the evidence will show that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The evidence will therefore establish that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds it must establish and that it is entitled to the relief it seeks.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of a cryptocurrency named Zcash that allows its users to achieve financial privacy by encrypting sender, amount and recipient data in a single-signature transaction and has been so engaged since 2016.

2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for ZCASH. In particular, the evidence has established that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the ZCASH trademark by virtue of its registration of that trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, registration number 5,361,134, registered on December 19, 2017 and other trademarks for ZCASH (collectively "the ZCASH trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services.

3. The Respondent registered the <zcash.press> domain name on August 8, 2024 ("the disputed domain name").

4. The Respondent has caused the disputed domain name to resolve to a website which is calculated to disrupt the Complainant's business, lure internet users to the Respondent's website and to acquire Lumenite cryptocurrency from the Respondent, generates confusion between the Complainant and the Respondent and is an infringement of the Complainant's trademark.

5. By reason of the matters aforesaid, and as established by the evidence, the disputed domain name is identical to the ZCASH trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

6. Accordingly, the disputed domain name should be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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").

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The first question that arises is whether the Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely in this proceeding. The evidence establishes that the Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for ZCASH. In particular, the evidence has established that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the ZCASH trademark by virtue of its registration of that trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, registration number 5,361,134, registered on December 19, 2017 and other trademarks for ZCASH (collectively "the ZCASH trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services.

The aforesaid facts have been established by documentary evidence that the Panel has examined and finds to be in order.

The Complainant has thus established its trademark rights and hence its standing to bring this proceeding.

The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's ZCASH trademark.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the ZCASH trademark. The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the entirety of ZCASH trademark with no additions or alterations but with the addition of the generic Top Level Domain ".press". Thus, internet users would read the domain name as invoking the ZCASH trademark and as dealing with the Complainant's goods and services offered under the trademark, and as being either a domain name of the Complainant itself or one that has been registered with its consent.

The addition of the generic Top Level Domain ".press" is ignored in making the comparison, because all domain names must have such an extension.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the ZCASH trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish under the Policy.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such 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 on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on all of the grounds relied on by the Complainant.

It must first be understood what the Respondent has done with the disputed domain name. The Complainant produces cryptocurrency called ZCASH. The Respondent also produces cryptocurrency called Lumenite. But the Respondent decided that it would be better if people bought his cryptocurrency rather than the Complainant's cryptocurrency. With that objective in mind he decided that he needed a domain name for his enterprise, so he chose the Complainant's trademark, ZCASH which is also the name of the Complainant's cryptocurrency and fashioned it into his own domain name <zcash.press>; he then utilized that into a website, www.zcash.press on which, rather than create his own content, he copied the contents of the Complainant's website. However, he went one further than that and added, under the bold headline "ZCASH Partners with Lumenite", that he was "thrilled" to announce that event and that it presented "a revolutionary opportunity for our community". His website went on to say that users could now exchange their ZCASH coins "for Lumenite (LMT) tokens, the core currency of the Lumenite educational platform. These tokens will empower you to pay for successful learning achievements and unlock exclusive benefits within their ecosystem". Finally, he urged users to "Secure your LMT tokens early and position yourself for the future growth of this groundbreaking platform. Exchange your ZEC coins today and take the first step towards a brighter, token-powered future!" As a final touch, he added an active link, namely "Start your exchange now!", which resolves to his own website at <lumenite.space>, with the heading "Exchange Your Cryptocurrency for Lumenite Tokens Today!" and a button named "Pay with cryptobot" which, when it resolves, invites users to "Use @CryptoBot to buy, sell, store, @send and pay with cryptocurrency right in Telegram". It need scarcely be said that pivotal to this scheme is that it starts with and revolves around the unauthorized use of the Complainant's ZCASH trademark.

With that background is can be seen how the Complainant is correct on all of the grounds it relies on to show that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, which are:

(a) the Respondent has not used the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) but rather has used it for an internet scam involving the diversion of internet users to the Respondent's own cryptocurrency website; there is nothing bona fide about this and the expression mala fide is more appropriate to describe the Respondent's conduct;

(b) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the domain name and no evidence that it is known by any name other than its own;

(c) the Respondent has failed to discharge its duty to select, register and use a domain name that does not infringe the rights of a third party; this comes from the registration agreement under which the Respondent acquired the domain name and the Respondent is clearly in breach of it;

(d) the Respondent has not used the domain name for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) but rather has used the domain name for improper commercial gain; it is clear from the foregoing evidence that there is nothing legitimate or noncommercial about it and neither is it fair, either to the Complainant or internet users in general, particularly investors; and

(e) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be shown that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name under the Policy or otherwise; this is self-evident on the known facts.

The Complainant has therefore made out a persuasive case for all of the grounds it relies on to show that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

All of these matters make out the prima facie case against the Respondent. The Respondent has not filed a Response and is in default and has thus not rebutted the prima facie case against it.

The Complainant has therefore made out the second of the three elements it must establish under the Policy.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in the Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive but that domain name proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.

The Complainant has submitted that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith on several grounds. In view of the evidence discussed above, which is equally applicable to bad faith as it is to rights and legitimate interests and which it is not necessary to repeat, it is clear that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds relied on.

In particular, it is clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted:

(a) the Respondent has used the domain name to disrupt the Complainant's business within the meaning of Policy 4(b) (iii); the essence of the Respondent's scheme is that there should be less business going to the Complainant and more business to the Respondent, which is disruptive of the Complainant's business and an express ground of bad faith registration and use under the Policy;

(b) when the Respondent uses the Complainant's own trademark and then refers to the alleged news that the Complainant and the Respondent are now partners and also to "our community", it is clear that it is implying either that it is the Complainant or authorized by it, both of which are untrue; this is therefore a form of passing off to prompt and encourage users, under the imprimatur of the ZCASH trademark, to use the Respondent's own cryptocurrency Lumenite and to visit its website at www.lumenite.space;

(c) the Respondent has used the domain name to generate confusion between its website and the Complainant's official and genuine website within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) for financial gain; this has clearly been shown by the evidence;

(d) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant, its name and trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name; the Respondent obviously acquired detailed knowledge of the Complainant and its operations and, indeed, it needed this knowledge to perpetrate its subterfuge; and

(e) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances revealed by the evidence have show that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith; this is self-evident from all the known facts.

Finally, in addition to the specific provisions of the Policy and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name using the XCASH trademark and in view of the conduct of the Respondent, as shown by all of the available evidence, the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.

The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.

The Complainant has also cited several prior UDRP decisions that support all of its contentions.

The Complainant has therefore established all of the elements that it must show under the Policy and it is entitled to the relief it seeks, namely transfer of the disputed domain name.

DECISION

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

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

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC, Panelist

Dated: March 17, 2025