Robinhood Markets, Inc. v. spin on web / Himanshu Sharma / Amit Kumar Rawat
Claim Number: FA2110001968200
Complainant is Robinhood Markets, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David K. Caplan of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is spin on web / Himanshu Sharma / Amit Kumar Rawat (“Respondent”), International.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <robinhood-customer-service.com>, <robinhoodsupportcontactnumber.com>, <robinhoodcustomerservicenumber.com>, and <robinhood-phone-number.com>, registered with Eranet International Limited, Dreamscape Networks International Pte Ltd, or Domainshype.com, 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.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 7, 2021; the Forum received payment on October 7, 2021.
On October 10, 2021; Oct 11, 2021; Oct 12, 2021, Eranet International Limited; Dreamscape Networks International Pte Ltd; Domainshype.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <robinhood-customer-service.com>, <robinhoodsupportcontactnumber.com>, <robinhoodcustomerservicenumber.com>, and <robinhood-phone-number.com> domain names are registered with Eranet International Limited, Dreamscape Networks International Pte Ltd, or Domainshype.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Eranet International Limited, Dreamscape Networks International Pte Ltd, or Domainshype.com, LLC have verified that Respondent is bound by the Eranet International Limited, Dreamscape Networks International Pte Ltd, or Domainshype.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 October 18, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 8, 2021 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@robinhood-customer-service.com, postmaster@robinhoodsupportcontactnumber.com, postmaster@robinhoodcustomerservicenumber.com, and postmaster@robinhood-phone-number.com. Also on October 18, 2021, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 14, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC 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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
Complainant contends that the same postal address is used for all of the registrants, all of the disputed domain names, with the exception of the <robinhood-phone-number.com> domain name, all share the same IP address, all of the disputed domain names resolve to identical websites or incorporate the same colors, three of the four domain names utilizes the same service provider, and all of the domain names use the entirety of Complainant’s ROBINHOOD mark.
Having regard to all the evidence and the circumstances of the case, the Panel finds that the domain names are all commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases. The matter may therefore go forward on that basis.
A. Complainant
Complainant made the following contentions.
Complainant, Robinhood Markets, Inc., is a financial services and commission-free investing company and operator of related applications that allow for self-directed stock trading via mobile devices. Complainant maintains registration in the ROBINHOOD mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and other authorities, including Japan and the European Union. See Compl. Annx. H. The disputed domain names, <robinhood-customer-service.com>, <robinhoodsupportcontactnumber.com>, <robinhoodcustomerservicenumber.com>, and <robinhood-phone-number.com> (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the disputed domain names”), are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROBINHOOD mark because they wholly incorporate Complainant’s ROBINHOOD mark while adding in the generic or descriptive terms “customer service”, “support”, “contact”, “phone”, or “number”, or a hyphen, and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to form a domain name.
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent is engaged in a phishing scheme purporting to offer customer services in connection with Complainant.
Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith because Respondent diverts users seeking Complainant’s services onto Respondent’s websites in furtherance of a phishing scheme promoting commercial support services where Respondent benefits commercially.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. Complainant is a United States company that is a financial services and commission-free investing company and operator of related applications that allow for self-directed stock trading via mobile devices.
2. Complainant has established its registered trademark rights in the ROBINHOOD mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and other authorities, including Japan and the European Union.
3. Respondent registered the disputed domain names on the following dates: <robinhood-customer-service.com> was registered on June 18, 2021; <robinhoodsupportcontactnumber.com> was registered on June 7, 2021; <robinhoodcustomerservicenumber.com> was registered on June 7, 2021; and <robinhood-phone-number.com> was registered on July 23, 2021.
4. Respondent has used the domain names to engage in a phishing scheme purporting to offer customer services in connection with Complainant.
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 Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 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”).
The first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. Complainant submits that it has rights in the ROBINHOOD mark with its registration with multiple authorities including USPTO, Japan, and European Union. Registration of a mark with multiple authorities is sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Alibaba Group Holding Limited v. YINGFENG WANG, FA 1568531 (Forum Aug. 21, 2014) (“Complainant has rights in the ALIBABA mark under the Policy through registration with trademark authorities in numerous countries around the world.”). Complainant provides copies and details of its registration in the ROBINHOOND mark with authorities in Japan (e.g. Reg. No. 1257433 - Registered on October 29, 2015); European Union (e.g. Reg. No. 1257433 – Registered on November 26, 2015); and Reg. No. 4,761,666 – Registered on Jun. 23, 2015) which the Panel accepts. See Compl. Annx. H. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established its trademark rights in the ROBINHOOD mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROBINHOOD mark. Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROBINHOOD mark because they wholly incorporate Complainant’s ROBINHOOD mark while adding in descriptive or generic terms or a hyphen and the “.com” gTLD to form a domain name. A domain name may be found to be identical or confusingly similar despite the addition of generic or descriptive terms or a hyphen to a domain name. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. XINXIU ZENG / haimin liang, FA 1736365 (Forum July 19, 2017) (finding that the addition of punctuation—specifically, a hyphen—did not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from complainant’s registered mark). The terms added here are “customer service”, “support”, “contact”, “phone”, or “number”. The <robinhood-customer-service.com> domain name, in addition to the added terms, incorporates a hyphen. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
It is now well established that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show 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 satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also 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”).
(a) Respondent has chosen to take Complainant’s ROBINHOOD trademark and to use it in its domain names, adding the generic words “customer service”, “support”, “contact”, “phone”, or “number” which do not negate the confusing similarity between the domain names and the trademark;
(b) Respondent registered the disputed domain names on the following dates: <robinhood-customer-service.com> was registered on June 18, 2021; <robinhoodsupportcontactnumber.com> was registered on June 7, 2021; <robinhoodcustomerservicenumber.com> was registered on June 7, 2021; and <robinhood-phone-number.com> was registered on July 23, 2021;
(c) Respondent has used the domain names to engage in a phishing scheme purporting to offer customer services in connection with Complainant;
(d) Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or approval of Complainant;
(e) Complainant argues Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Evidence of a respondent not being commonly known by a domain name, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), may be found where the identifying WHOIS information is unrelated to a domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same). The WHOIS information lists the registrant as either “Himanshu Sharma”, “Amit Kumar Rawat”, or “spin on web”. See Registrar Email Verification. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);
(f) Complainant argues Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, instead offering services that are associated with Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Use of a domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme may be evidence of a domain name not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See United States Postal Service v. Kehinde Okunola / Genuine ICT Centre, FA 1785420 (Forum June 6, 2018) (“Respondent uses the <uspscouriers.com> domain name both to sell services competing with the business of Complainant and to phish for personal identification information from Internet users. Neither of these uses of the domain name constitutes a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) such as would confirm in Respondent rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name as provided in those subsections of the Policy.”). In screenshots provided by Complainant, the resolving websites bear Complainant’s ROBINHOOD mark and offers customer support services associated with Complainant. See Annx. I and J. Complainant submits that Respondent’s use is phishing because it requires users to provide personal information. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.
It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and have been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons.
First, Complainant argues Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith because Respondent uses the disputed domain names to phish for personal information through its advertising of services related to Complainant, creating a likelihood of confusion as to the disputed domain names’ association with Complainant. Use of a domain name to divert traffic to a website that passes itself off as Complainant may be evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Monsanto Co. v. Decepticons, FA 101536 (Forum Dec. 18, 2001) (finding that the respondent's use of <monsantos.com> to misrepresent itself as the complainant and to provide misleading information to the public supported a finding of bad faith); see also LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, FA1762308 (Forum Jan. 9, 2018) (Finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer competing loan services disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). Complainant submits that Respondent’s use disrupts Complainant’s business because Respondent offers customer service that Complainant provides to its own users and Respondent thus effectively passes itself off as Complainant. See Compl. Annx. I and J. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Secondly, Complainant argues Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith because Respondent is using the disputed domain names in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Use of a domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme may be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) (“[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Complainant asserts phishing activities because Respondent asks for personal information from users who are looking for customer service. See Compl. Annx. I and J. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <robinhood-customer-service.com>, <robinhoodsupportcontactnumber.com>, <robinhoodcustomerservicenumber.com>, and <robinhood-phone-number.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC
Panelist
Dated: November 16, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page