DECISION

 

BitPay, Inc. v. Janet martin

Claim Number: FA2604002215944

 

PARTIES

Complainant is BitPay, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Ashley N. Klein of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Janet martin ("Respondent"), North Carolina, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <bitpaypro.net>, registered with Cloudflare, Inc.

 

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.

 

James Bridgeman SC Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 15, 2026; Forum received payment on April 15, 2026.

 

On April 16, 2026, Cloudflare, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bitpaypro.net> domain name is registered with Cloudflare, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Cloudflare, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cloudflare, Inc. 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 20, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 11, 2026 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@bitpaypro.net.

 

Also on April 20, 2026, 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 12, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant claims rights in the BITPAY trademark and service mark through its ownership of the portfolio of registrations described below and continuous use of the mark in commerce providing cryptocurrency services since at least 2011, including through its website at <www.bitpay.com>.

 

Using the BITPAY mark, Complainant provides merchants and their customers with the facility to accept cryptocurrency, as shown in the screen capture of the website at <bitpay.com>. 

 

Complainant submits that since its inception, it has processed over $5 billion US Dollars in payments for thousands of businesses worldwide and has also partnered with Apple Wallet, Google Pay, and Samsung Pay to provide merchant services.

 

As shown in the exhibits annexed to the Complaint, Complainant has invested large sums of money and resources to create, maintain and promote the goodwill associated with the BITPAY mark and Complainant submits that as a result of these promotional efforts, and its commitment to providing quality services the BITPAY mark is recognized and relied upon by the consuming public, along with potential and existing employees.

 

Firstly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name <bitpaypro.net> is confusingly similar to Complainant's BITPAY mark, arguing that Complainant's mark is the primary element of the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant submits that the term "pro" and the generic Top-Level Domain ""gTLD" extension <.net> does not make the disputed domain name distinct from the BITPAY mark. See for example the decision of the panel in Google LLC v. dallen sun, FA 2193245 (Forum Jan. 2, 2026) (holding that the use of the gTLD "net" and the generic term "pro" in the domain names <nanobananaproai.org> and <nanobanana2ai.net> did not distinguish those domain names from the complainant's NANO BANANA marks).

 

Secondly, Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, arguing that

·       Respondent did not register the disputed domain name until December 19, 2025, long after Complainant began using the BITPAY mark and long after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued registrations for the BITPAY mark;

·       Respondent is not commonly known by the term "BitPay" or "BitPayPro";

·       Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant;

·       Respondent does not operate a business or other organization under the disputed domain name or the BITPAY mark;

·       Upon information and belief, Respondent does not own any trademark or service mark rights in the disputed domain name;

·       BITPAY is a distinctive mark and Complainant is unaware of any other use of that name or anything like it in the cryptocurrency and financial services industries; and

·       Complainant's use of the disputed domain name does not make clear that there is no commercial connection with Complainant.

 

Complainant submits that accordingly, Respondent's use of the disputed domain name cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods or services. See Am. Intl. Group Inc. v. Benjamin, FA 944242 (May 11, 2007) (finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain to offer services which competed with Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services).

 

Complainant adds that upon information and belief Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a phishing scheme as described below, and such use does not constitute a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. See The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Christoph Sigrist / Jameson Services Consulting, FA 1823381 (Forum Jan. 28, 2019) (holding that a Respondent using a domain to offer fraudulent stock offerings did not have legitimate rights or interests).

 

Thirdly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, arguing that bad faith exists where a respondent registers a domain name with knowledge of another party's rights in trademarks and/or service marks incorporated into the domain name at issue. Citing NARS Fit Holdings LLC v. Magnum Domains, FA 1793576 (Forum Aug. 3, 2018) ("[D]omain name registrants are presumed to have actual or constructive knowledge of a mark when the mark is registered with the USPTO."). 

 

Complainant argues that at a minimum, Respondent therefore had constructive knowledge of the BITPAY mark by virtue of Complainant's registered marks.

 

Furthermore, it is argued that Respondent took deliberate steps to conceal its true identity when registering the disputed domain name which is evidence of bad faith given the circumstances of the case. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at § 3.6 ("There are recognized legitimate uses of privacy and proxy registration services; the circumstances in which such services are used, including whether the respondent is operating a commercial and trademark-abusive website, can however impact a panel's assessment of bad faith … Panels additionally view the provision of false contact information (or an additional privacy or proxy service) underlying a privacy or proxy service as an indication of bad faith.").

 

Complainant adds that as shown in the screen capture exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, there is no physical address listed on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Further, the website lists conflicting email contact information, sometimes listing their support email as support@bitpaypro.net and other times listing their support email as support@bitpaypro.com.

 

Again, referring to the screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, Complainant argues that upon information and belief, Respondent created the disputed domain name and the website to which the disputed domain name resolves to trade off Complainant's reputation and recognition in the marketplace in the BITPAY mark and to pursue phishing scams through use of emails from an account established using the disputed domain name so that it could obtain the personal or financial information of Complainant's customers.

 

Complainant explains that because of the nature of its business, its customers are common targets of "phishing" scams, pursuant to which they are solicited to provide personal or financial information for investment services or to open a digital Bitcoin wallet to accept cryptocurrency.

 

Furthermore, Complainant notes that the screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolved on March 2, 2026, illustrates that Complainant provides links to social media; however, all of the linked social media accounts are either inactive or deactivated. These social media account pages, which were accessed on March 2, 2026, are attached as an annex to the Complaint.

 

It is contended that such use of the disputed domain name by Respondent is confusing and disruptive in that visitors might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by Complainant, with great harm to Complainant's reputation in the marketplace.

 

In conclusion, Complainant submits that upon information and belief, that Respondent may be using the disputed domain name within the address of the exhibited website to which it resolves to solicit users into disclosing their personal, financial, and Complainant's account information. Complainant contends that such use also constitutes bad faith. See FIL Limited v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp., WIPO Case No. D2019-1093 ("Several UDRP panels have found that phishing schemes that use a complainant's trademark in the disputed domain name are evidence of bad faith.").

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is a Bitcoin payment processor and carries on business using the BITPAY trademark and service mark for which it owns a portfolio of registrations including the following:

·       United States registered trademark BITPAY, registration number 4,734,069 registered on the Principal Register on May 12, 2015, for services in international class 36;

·       United States registered trademark BITPAY, registration number 6,553,965 registered on the Principal Register on November 9, 2021 for goods and services in international classes 9, 36 and 42;

·       United States registered trademark BITPAY, registration number 6,553,966 registered on the Principal Register on November 9, 2021, for services in international class 36.

 

Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains its principal website at <www.bitpay.com>.

 

The disputed domain name <bitpaypro.net> was registered on December 19, 2025, and as shown in a screen capture exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, as of March 2, 2026, it resolved to an active website on which Respondent purports to offer cryptocurrency trading services.

 

There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding.

 

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 3.1 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 provided convincing evidence that it has rights in the BITPAY trademark and service mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of trademark registrations described above, and use of the mark since at least 2011, including through its official website in its business providing merchants and their customers with the facility to make and receive payments in cryptocurrency.

 

The uncontested evidence is that since it was established, Respondent has processed over $5 billion US Dollars in payments for thousands of businesses worldwide and has also partnered with Apple Wallet, Google Pay, and Samsung Pay to provide merchant services.

 

The disputed domain name <bitpaypro.net> consists of Complainant's BITPAY mark in its entirety in combination with the element "pro" and the gTLD extension <.net>.

 

It is well established that where, as in the present proceeding, a domain name at issue contains a complainant's mark in its entirety as in the present Complaint, the complainant will satisfy the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

In the circumstances of this case the element "pro" is a generic term and does not add any distinguishing character to the disputed domain name.

 

Furthermore, the gTLD extension <.net> may be ignored for the purposes of comparison as it would be considered by Internet users to be a technical necessity for a domain name.

 

This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name <bitpaypro.net>  is confusingly similar to the BITPLAY mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above.

 

In particular, the uncontested evidence is that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website which purports to offer cryptocurrency trading services on a "BitPlayPro" platform.

 

On the platform Respondent purports to provide cryptocurrency market prices; invites Internet users without an account to sign up; invites the general public to correspond with Respondent by email through a form on a contact page where members of the public are invited to provide their full name, email address and details of their inquiry.

 

A finding that Respondent does not have any bona fide business is further supported by the uncontested evidence in the form of the screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolved on March 2, 2026, which illustrates that Respondent provides links to Respondent's social media accounts on its website; however, all of the linked social media accounts are either inactive or deactivated.

 

Complaint has made out an unanswered prima facie case that Respondent is not carrying out any bona fide business.

 

Therefore, on the balance of probabilities Respondent is using the disputed domain name to create a website for the purposes of phishing for the personal data of unsuspecting Internet users, which cannot create rights in the disputed domain name or constitute a legitimate use of the disputed domain name.

 

It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.

 

Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore the Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The uncontested evidence is that Complainant has used the BITPAY mark since it was first registered in 2015, and its business facilitating merchants and customers to use Bitcoin for payments in transactions has processed over $5 billion US Dollars in payments for thousands of businesses worldwide. Additionally, Complainant has partnered with Apple Wallet, Google Pay, and Samsung Pay to provide merchant services.

 

The disputed domain name on the other hand was not registered until December 19, 2025.

 

Complainant has established a significant reputation and goodwill as a provider of services to merchants allowing them and their customers to make payments in Bitcoin. Respondent purports to offer services trading in cryptocurrencies.

 

While the cryptocurrency trading services offered by Respondent are not in direct competition with Complainant, it is improbable that the registrant of the disputed domain name, which is composed of Complainant's mark in combination with a generic word, chose and registered without knowledge of Complainant's mark.

 

It is further improbable that Respondent was unaware of Complainant and Complainant's own website at <www.bitpay.com> when Respondent used the disputed domain name to create its cryptocurrency trading website.

 

So, in the absence of any explanation from Respondent, there appears to be no plausible reason for registering the disputed domain name which consists of the BITPAY mark in its entirety, as the initial, dominant and only distinctive element, other than to create an association with Complainant and its services.

 

On the balance of probabilities, therefore, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name was in fact chosen and registered with Complainant's mark in mind with the intention of taking predatory advantage of Complainant's rights and goodwill in the BITPAY mark.

 

The uncontested evidence is that Respondent is using the disputed domain name as the address of a website, described above, which purports to offer cryptocurrency trading.

 

While Respondent is not purporting to offer a service in direct competition with the payment service offered by Complainant it is significant that Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain name as the website address, that the social media links that Respondent has placed in its website do not resolve to any active social media accounts; that on the balance of probabilities Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; that Respondent does not carry on any legitimate business; and there are strong indications that Respondent is using the disputed domain name as a website address to perpetrate a phishing scam.

 

The Panel finds therefore that on the balance of probabilities Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as the address of a website, which is intended to attract and confuse Internet users and cause them to divert their Internet traffic intended for Complainant and misdirect it 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 web site.

 

As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, the Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <bitpaypro.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

James Bridgeman SC, Panelist

Dated: May 13, 2026