DECISION

 

Blockchange Ventures I GP, LLC v. Giovanni La Perna

Claim Number: FA2606002227086

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Blockchange Ventures I GP, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Vanessa A. Ignacio of Lowenstein Sandler LLP, New Jersey, USA. Respondent is Giovanni La Perna ("Respondent"), Paraguay.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <blockchange.expert>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 12, 2026; Forum received payment on June 12, 2026.

 

On June 16, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <blockchange.expert> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 June 19, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 10, 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@blockchange.expert. Also on June 19, 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.

 

An informal response was received and determined to be complete on June 19, 2026.

 

On July 13, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

On the same day, the Panel issued a Procedural Order, requesting further information from the parties. 

 

On July 23, 2026, both parties sent timely Additional Submissions to Forum.

 

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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it is a leading venture capital group that invests in blockchain technology and cryptocurrency companies, protocols, and applications, with over $800 million assets under management through and together with its affiliates. Complainant is known to the public as Blockchange, Blockchange Ventures, and/or Blockchange Management Complainant was formed under the corporate name "Blockchange Ventures I GP, LLC" as a limited liability company in the State of Delaware on August 8, 2017, and has been using the BLOCKCHANGE trademark since its founding. Complainant's services provided under its BLOCKCHANGE mark regularly receive recognition in the press for its investment activities (The Block and Fortune) among others. Complainant is the owner of the <blockchange.vc> domain name and has owned and maintained this domain since 2017. Complainant asserts rights in the mark BLOCKCHANGE through its registration in the United States in 2019.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its BLOCKCHANGE mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the ".expert" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in its mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website offers services closely related to those offered by the Complainant. Respondent offers design services to build multi-rail in- and off- ramp architecture that allows movement of value through cards, banks and local rails before final deposit into bitcoin or digital dollars. Complainant's services are prominent within the bitcoin field. Therefore the disputed domain name is being used to pass itself off as Complainant, to confuse consumers, and capitalize on confusion with Complainant. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving website provides competing services. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark. Respondent used a privacy service. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent states that Blockchange is his registered name in Paraguay with the official tax authorities. And that he has the supporting documents. However, no supporting documents are attached to the response.

 

C. Additional Submissions

In its Additional Submission, Complainant provides evidence that its business and mark are well known in Latin America, and it presses its case.

 

In its Additional Submissions, Respondent reiterates that he runs a legitimate business under the name Blockchange, refuses to provide evidence to support that allegation, and states that the disputed domain name is also used to operate an email service that may contain confidential information, so Complainant may commit illegal acts if it accesses that email service. Respondent also sets forth threats and insults which the Panel will not reproduce here.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark BLOCKCHANGE, with rights dating back to at least 2019 and uses it to conduct investment activities. The mark is well known, including in Latin America.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2026.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The resolving website offers services that compete with those of 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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's BLOCKCHANGE mark in its entirety and merely adds the ".expert" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). This does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs"); see also Abbott Labs v. Whois Svc., FA 1254682 (Forum May 14, 2009) ("the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a registered mark"); see also Twitter, Inc. v. Jie, FA 1919786 (Forum Dec. 9, 2020) ("The Panel considers the disputed domain name [<twitter.luxe>] to be identical to Complainant's registered [TWITTER] trademark"). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Giovanni La Perna". Thus the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Respondent states that Blockchange is his registered name in Paraguay with the official tax authorities. And that he has the supporting documents. However, no supporting documents were attached to the response.

 

According to paragraph 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1"), a Panel may conduct limited factual research regarding disputed domain names:

 

Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision.

 

This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name, consulting historical resources such as the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) in order to obtain an indication of how a domain name may have been used in the relevant past, reviewing dictionaries or encyclopedias (e.g., Wikipedia), or accessing trademark registration databases.

 

The Panel has consulted the publicly available Registro Único del Contribuyente (RUC), which is the unique taxpayer registry that maintains the personal, non-transferable, identification number for all those physical persons (national or foreign) and legal entities (for-profit and non-profit) that carry out economic activities in the Paraguayan territory. See https://org-id.guide/list/PY-RUC 

 

The Panel has not found any entries in that registry for "Blockchange". The Panel has found an entry for Respondent, that is, for "Giovanni La Perna". The search was made at: http://www.ruc.com.py/ 

 

In its Procedural Order, the Panel informed the parties of its above research, and requested that Respondent "provide supporting documents showing that Blockchange is your registered name in Paraguay with the official tax authorities".

 

Respondent refused to provide evidence.

 

In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the balance of the evidence in the record does not support Respondent's allegations.

 

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp., FA 7680200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) ("finding that a Complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case, so as to satisfy UDRP Policy 4(a)(ii)." 

 

Here, Complainant has satisfied its burden of making its prima facie case, and Respondent has failed to rebut that prima facie case, even when specifically requested by the Panel to provide relevant evidence.

 

Consequently, the Panel finds – on the balance of the evidence before it – that Respondent has not shown that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

The resolving website promotes services that compete with those of Complainant. Past panels have declined to find a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name when a respondent diverts traffic to a site that offers goods or services that are in competition with those of a complainant. See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

For all the above reasons, the Panel finds – on the balance of the evidence before it – that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent states that Blockchange is his registered name in Paraguay with the official tax authorities. However, as noted above, he does not provide any evidence to support that allegation, and a search in public records does not support the allegation.

 

Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent has not presented a plausible explanation for his use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds – on the balance of the evidence before it –that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name, and this in particular because Complainant provides evidence showing that its mark is well known in Latin America.

 

As already noted, the resolving website promotes services that compete with those of Complainant. A respondent's use of a disputed domain name to drive Internet users to a commercial site offering goods or services that compete with those of a complainant may indicate bad faith attraction for commercial gain per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA 1579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) ("Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant."); see also OneWest Bank N.A. v. Matthew Foglia, FA 1611449 (Forum Apr. 26, 2015) (holding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website which competed with the complainant was evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

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 <blockchange.expert> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: July 24, 2026