DECISION

 

HDR Global Trading Limited v. YUYING LIN

Claim Number: FA2008001908394

 

PARTIES

Complainant is HDR Global Trading Limited ("Complainant"), represented by J. Damon Ashcraft of SNELL & WILMER L.L.P, United States. Respondent is YUYING LIN ("Respondent"), Taiwan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <bitmexapp.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 13, 2020; the Forum received payment on August 13, 2020.

 

On August 14, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <bitmexapp.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 August 18, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 8, 2020 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@bitmexapp.com. Also on August 18, 2020, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On September 10, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the 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.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant owns and operates a cryptocurrency trading platform. Complainant states that it hosts more cryptocurrency trades than any other platform in the world, with an annual trading volume of $1 trillion. Complainant has used the BITMEX mark since 2014 in connection with financial trading platform services, and owns trademark registrations for BITMEX in the European Union and China.

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name <bitmexapp.com> via a privacy registration service in March 2020. In June 2020 the domain name was being used for a website entitled "Check out BitMex's latest trading guide" and promoting a cryptocurrency trading platform, with Complainant's BITMEX mark displayed throughout the site. Complainant sent two cease-and-desist letters to Respondent, receiving no response. As of the filing of the Complaint in August 2020, the disputed domain name resolved to a parked page containing advertising links for mobile apps. Complainant states that Respondent has not been authorized to use Complainant's mark and has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <bitmexapp.com> is confusingly similar to its BITMEX mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <bitmexapp.com> incorporates Complainant's registered BITMEX trademark, adding the generic term "app" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., HDR Global Trading Ltd. v. Abhishake Agarwal, FA 1889093 (Forum Apr. 20, 2020) (finding <bitmex-bot.com> confusingly similar to BITMEX); Bittrex, Inc. v. Elea Moreira Barbosa, FA 1796328 (Forum Aug. 10, 2018) (finding <bittrex-app.com> confusingly similar to BITTREX). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. The sole apparent uses of the disputed domain name have been to promote directly competing services and to display pay-per-click links. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., HDR Global Trading Ltd. v. Abhishake Agarwal, supra (domain name used to offer competing cryptocurrency services); HDR Global Trading Ltd. v. Kathryn Bates, FA 1861323 (Forum Oct. 7, 2019) (domain name used to display click-through links to competing and unrelated services).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent'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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent registered a domain name obviously intended to create confusion with Complainant's mark, and is using the domain name to promote directly competing services while displaying Complainant's mark, and more recently to display pay-per-click links. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See, e.g., HDR Global Trading Ltd. v. Abhishake Agarwal, supra (finding bad faith where domain name was used to offer competing services, and inferring actual knowledge of Complainant's mark); HDR Global Trading Ltd. v. Kathryn Bates, FA 1861323 (Forum Oct. 7, 2019) (finding bad faith where domain name used to display click-through links to competing and unrelated services, and inferring actual knowledge of Complainant's mark). The Panel so finds.

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: September 21, 2020

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page