HDR Global Trading Limited v. Mudassar Munir
Claim Number: FA2005001895547
Complainant is HDR Global Trading Limited (“Complainant”), represented by J. Damon Ashcraft of SNELL & WILMER L.L.P., Arizona, USA. Respondent is Mudassar Munir ( “Respondent”), Republic of Ireland.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <hdrglobaltrading.com>, registered with DomainSails.net LLC.
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.
Luca Barbero as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 8, 2020; the Forum received payment on May 8, 2020.
On May 11, 2020, DomainSails.net LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <hdrglobaltrading.com> domain name is registered with DomainSails.net LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DomainSails.net LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the DomainSails.net 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 May 12, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 1, 2020 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@hdrglobaltrading.com. Also on May 12, 2020, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 20, 2020.
On May 22, 2020, an Additional Submission was sent by the Complainant.
On May 26, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Luca Barbero as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that it owns and operates a leading and prominent cryptocurrency-based virtual trading platform, marketed to millions of consumers worldwide, offering premier financial trading services in the field of digitized assets such as bitcoins, cryptocurrency, digital tokens, virtual currency and digital currencies since its inception in 2014.
Complainant further highlights that it is serving customers all over the world and that its business has grown to average between $1 billion to $5 billion of trading volume per day, with an annual trading volume of $1 trillion.
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark HDR GLOBAL TRADING and its domain name <hdrglobaltradingltd.com>.
Complainant indicates that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name for the following reasons:
- Respondent is not licensed, permitted, or authorized to use Complainant’s marks;
- Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name;
- Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as the Disputed Domain Name currently resolves to an inactive webpage, whilst before the filing of the Complaint, it was pointed to a parking page with promotional links for online trading and equity brokers;
- Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name in jurisdictions throughout the world where Complainant has pre-existing rights;
- it appears that Respondent’s only interest in acquiring the Disputed Domain Name is to sell it to Complainant, as evidenced by Respondent’s prompt offer to sell the Disputed Domain Name after acquiring it.
Complainant also submits that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith because:
- Respondent’s registration of a domain name incorporating the trademark of a large, well-known financial trading services company with many trademark registrations in the United States and around the world is alone sufficient to infer bad faith, as Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the HDR GLOBAL TRADING mark prior to registering the Disputed Domain Name;
- Respondent has offered the Disputed Domain Name for sale to Complainant for a substantial sum.
B. Respondent
Respondent asserts that he bought the Disputed Domain Name on April 2, 2020 from an auction on the NameJet website and was entirely unaware of any prior registrant intentions.
Respondent denies having requested money for the sale of the Disputed Domain Name in March or sent any emails in that same period, but confirms he did suggest selling the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant on April 21, 2020, requesting the same amount paid to NameJet for the acquisition, i.e. $1171.75.
Respondent claims that he was not acting in bad faith when purchasing the Disputed Domain Name and requests that the Complaint be denied without granting Complainant the Disputed Domain Name free of charge.
C. Complainant’s Additional Submission
Complainant underlines that Respondent does not contest the strength Complainant’s HDR GLOBAL TRADING mark, the likelihood of confusion caused by the Disputed Domain Name, or that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name without any rights or legitimate interests in it.
Complainant highlights that Respondent admitted that he successfully bid on and paid for the Disputed Domain Name in an online auction, and highlights that, by stating that the Disputed Domain Name is currently pointed to “an inactive site, not doing any trading, no website, only domain name”, he is confirming the circumstance that he is not using and is not planning to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services whilst also conceding that he has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
Complainant contends that even though the Respondent did not pay to register the Disputed Domain Name until April 2, 2020, that does not change the fact that he still registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, with full knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in the HDR GLOBAL TRADING mark.
Moreover, Complainant alleges that the Respondent hid his identity behind a privacy shield, thus further confirming that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad faith.
Lastly, Complainant contends that the Respondent’s Response and Annexes are unauthenticated and do not comply with the UDRP Rules and should thus not be taken into consideration in the present dispute, therefore renewing its request that the Disputed Domain Name should be transferred to Complainant.
Complainant owns and operates a cryptocurrency-base virtual trading platform and has provided evidence of ownership, amongst others, of the following trademarks:
- United States trademark registration No. 87859996 for HDR GLOBAL TRADING (word mark), filed on April 2, 2018 and registered on August 21, 2018, in International classes 9 and 36;
- Hong Kong Trademark Registration No. 305005674 for HDR GLOBAL TRADING LIMITED (word mark), registered on July 25, 2019, in classes 9 and 36.
Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <hdrglobaltradingltd.com>, registered on March 14, 2018.
The Disputed Domain Name <hdrglobaltrading.com> was registered on February 23, 2019 but was acquired by Respondent on April 2, 2020. The Disputed Domain Name currently resolves to a landing page with generic sponsored links but, based on the screenshot submitted by Complainant, was previously pointed to a parking page with commercial links related to online trading and equity brokers.
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 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.
Preliminary Procedural Issue: Complainant’s Additional Submission
The Panel notes that Complainant’s Additional Submission is mostly aimed at contesting Respondent’s contentions and is not based on additional circumstances that Complainant could not have been aware of at the time of the filing of the Complaint. The Panel finds that Complainant’ allegations contained therein, although certainly pertinent, are not decisive for the outcome of the case, which can thus be decided on the basis of the sole allegations contained in the Complaint and related Annexes as well as in Respondent’s Response.
Moreover, in light of the contents of Complainant’s Additional Submission, which does not raise new circumstances not yet addressed by Respondent in the Response, the Panel does not deem appropriate to request further submissions from Respondent and, also bearing in mind the need for procedural efficiency, will now proceed to issue its Decision.
Complainant has established rights in the mark HDR GLOBAL TRADING based on its United States trademark registration cited above and the related registration certificate submitted as Annex 3 to the Complaint.
The disputed domain name <hdrglobaltrading.com> incorporates Complainant’s HDR GLOBAL TRADING mark in its entirety with the mere addition of the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”, which can be diregarded in the assessment of identity or confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s HDR GLOBAL TRADING mark according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Complainant is required to make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, 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 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case) and Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Based on the records, Complainant has not licensed, permitted, or authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s mark and there is no evidence that Respondent, whose name is Mudassar Munir according to the WHOIS records, might be commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug, 3, 2017) (”Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.”);
Complainant claims that Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use since, prior to the present proceeding, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a parking page with sponsored links related to online trading and equity brokers. The use of a domain name to display hyperlinks related to a complainant’s business may not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per paragraphs 4(c)(i) or (iii) of the Policy. See Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. domain admin / private registrations aktien gesellschaft, FA1506001626253 (Forum July 29, 2015) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web page containing advertising links to products that compete with those of Complainant. The Panel finds that this does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). Complainant, via a Declaration of Anne Bolamperti submitted as Annex 13 to the Complainant, provided a screenshot of the resolving webpage as it displayed on April 16, 2020. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Moreover, the Panel notes that Respondent’s offer for sale of the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under paragraph 4(c)(i) and (iii) of the Policy.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name according to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Name was acquired by Respondent two years after Complainant’s filing of the HDR GLOBAL TRADING mark in the United States and Complainant’s registration of the domain name <hdrglobaltradingltd.com>. The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name, identical to Complainant’s trademark and confusingly similar to Complainant’s domain name, can hardly amount to a mere coincidence.
Based on the documents and statements submitted by the parties, the Panel finds that, on balance of probabilities, Respondent acquired the Disputed Domain Name at auction in order to target Complainant and its trademark HDR GLOBAL TRADING, likely in an attempt to derive profit from the sale of the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant.
Moreover, in light of Respondent’s redirection of the Disputed Domain Name to a website containing sponsored links, including links related to online trading and equity brokers which were displayed therein prior to the filing of the Complaint, the Panel also finds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain, by causing a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website to which the Disputed Domain Dame resolves, according to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that Complainant has proven that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith according to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <hdrglobaltrading.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant
Luca Barbero, Panelist
Dated: June 10, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page