URS FINAL DETERMINATION


MQCC Bungay International LLC et al. v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf et al.
Case Number: FA2605002220724


DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME(S)

   <bit.mortgage>
 <bitmortgage.xyz>

PARTIES

   Complainant Name: MQCC Bungay International LLC Anoop Bungay
   Domicile of Complainant: Washington, DC, United States of America

   Respondent Name: Robert M Maltby
   Domicile of Respondent: Ayr, United Kingdom

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

   Registries: Dog Beach, LLC,XYZ.COM LLC
   Registrars: NAMECHEAP INC

EXAMINER

   The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
   Nick J. Gardner, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

   Submission Date: 2026-05-12
   Commencement: 2026-05-14
   Response Date: 2026-05-21
   Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").

RELIEF SOUGHT

   Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

   Clear and convincing evidence.

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION

   Procedural Findings:  
      Multiple Respondents: Complaint as against <bitmortgage.xyz> is dismissed on the basis that Complainant has not established to the satisfaction of the Panel that <bitmortgage.xyz> and <bit.mortgage> are registered by the same domain-name holder as required by URS Rule 3(c). Such dismissal is without prejudice to Complainant's rights to re-file a fiurther complaint in respect of <bitmortgage.xyz>

   Findings of Fact: Complainants constitute a unified corporate group and an individual trademark owner operating under the common control of Anoop Bungay.Anoop Bungay is the individual registrant and owner of the incontestable federal trademark BITMORTGAGE in the United States (USPTO Reg. No. 5,285,241) . Complainants carry on business in the mortgage­ finance and digital ­asset financial sector.

  

URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.


[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Complainants have a registered US trademark for "BITMORTGAGE" (see above) The domain name <bit.mortgage>. is confusingly similar to that trademark.


[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Respondent 

Evidence filed by Respondent Robert Michael Maltby/Bitcoin Studios appears to show Respondent has a legitimate interest in the domain name in that it is operating a legitimate business which is not targeting Complainants or their business (see below)


[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant'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 Registrant's web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Respondent 

Respondent's evidence appears to indicate Respondent registered the domain name bit.mortgage because of the ordinary English meaning of those words namely in connection to a bitcoin related mortgage product.The domain name resolves to what appears to be a bona fide website with a landing page which states "Bitcoin-Backed Mortgages: Bridging Bitcoin Wealth with Dubai Real Estate Powered by Bitcoin Studios — a startup studio building practical, revenue-generating Bitcoin businesses across payments, lending, and real-world applications". So far as the Panel can see nothing on that website refers to or targets Complainants or their business.

FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD

  

The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

Respondent has alleged that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods. 

The Examiner finds as follows:

  1. The Complaint is an abuse of the proceedings. 

the Panel cannot see any basis for the Complaint to have been made against two unconnected Respondents and Complainants' evidence contains no understandable explanation on this issue. Complaint against <bit.mortgage> had no realistic prospects of success (see discussion above).


Decision

  

After reviewing the parties' submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has NOT demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be returned to the control of Respondent:

  1. bit.mortgage

After reviewing the parties' submissions, the Examiner determines that the following domain names should be dismissed without any findings; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be returned to the control of the Respondent.

  1. bitmortgage.xyz

The Examiner further finds the Complaint was brought in an abuse of the administrative proceeding or with material falsehoods as explained above. Complainant is reminded of URS Procedure 11 when making future filings. 


Determination

   Split Decision


   Nick J. Gardner
Examiner
Dated: 2026-05-23

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page