DECISION

 

Tiger Global Management, LLC v. tou tue

Claim Number: FA2201001979476

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Tiger Global Management, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Scott Kareff of Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, New York, USA.  Respondent is tou tue (“Respondent”), Hong Kong.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <intigers.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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 7, 2022; the Forum received payment on January 8, 2022.

 

On January 7, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <intigers.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 January 13, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 2, 2022 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@intigers.com.  Also on January 13, 2022, 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 February 8, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

i) Complainant provides a variety of investment services, working with public and private companies in the areas of Internet, software, consumer, and financial technology industries. Complainant asserts rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark through its registration of the mark with multiple trademark agencies around the world, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,919,597, registered on February 15, 2011). The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIGER GLOBAL mark, as it adds the abbreviation “in” for India and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).

 

ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the TIGER GLOBAL mark, nor is Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme.

 

iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by attempting to pass off as Complainant. Respondent also attempts to attract users for commercial gain by passing off as Complainant via email. Respondent had actual and/or constructive notice of Complainant’s mark, evidenced by Respondent’s passing off as Complainant. Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Respondent provided false or misleading information when registering the disputed domain name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on September 17, 2021.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark through its registration of the mark with multiple trademark agencies around the world, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,919,597, registered on February 15, 2011).

 

3. Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant.

 

4. Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme.

 

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 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”).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant asserts rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark through its registration of the mark with multiple trademark agencies around the world, including the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,919,597, registered on February 15, 2011). Registering a mark with multiple trademark agencies is sufficient to establish rights in a mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sept. 4, 2018) (“Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world.”); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Jimmy Yau, FA 1764034 (Forum Jan. 25, 2018) (“The Panel finds that complainant has rights in BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon its registration with multiple trademark agencies, including the USPTO.”).

 

The Panel notes that the owner of the TIGER GLOBAL mark is ‘Tiger Management L.L.C. (referred to as ‘Tiger Management’),’ and Complainant is a licensee for the TIGER GLOBAL mark.  Complainant has provided the Panel with a declaration of the General Counsel of ‘Tiger Management.’ The declaration acknowledges that Tiger Management approves and supports Complainant in its effort to obtain the transfer of this domain name, and further authorizes Complainant to receive and be the registrant of such domain name in the event Complainant is successful in the proceeding. Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has established rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues the disputed domain name <intigers.com> is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIGER GLOBAL mark, as it incorporates a part of the mark and adds the abbreviation “in” for India and the “.com” gTLD. The Panel notes that the term ‘GLOBAL’ is a descriptive term and less prominent, and thus the part ‘TIGER’ is a dominant portion in the composition of Complainant’s mark. In addition, merely adding a geographic term ‘in’ referring to ‘India’ where Complainant is engaged in the business in relation to Complainant’s mark is not sufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. The Panel therefore finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIGER GLOBAL mark.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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 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”).

 

Complainant contends Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not authorized to use the TIGER GLOBAL mark, nor is Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. To determine whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), the Panel may reference WHOIS information. 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). Furthermore, lack of authorization to use a mark serves as further indication that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 2011001919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) (“Here, the WHOIS information lists “er nong wu” as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”). In the present case, the WHOIS information shows Respondent is known as “tou tue” and there is no evidence to suggest Complainant authorized Respondent to use the TIGER GLOBAL mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant also argues Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant to deceive users is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”); see also Emerson Electric Co. v. Adilcon Rocha, FA 1735949 (Forum July 11, 2017) (finding that respondent’s attempt to pass off as complainant through emails does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services and, as such, respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). Complainant provides evidence that Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant via email. In addition, Complainant provides the Panel with a screenshot of the disputed domain name’s website which mimics the website of complainant’s legitimate website. The Panel therefore finds Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

Further, Complainant asserts Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Past panels have agreed that using a disputed domain name for a phishing scheme is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either 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).”); see also Morgan Stanley v. Zhange Sheng Xu / Zhang Sheng Xu, FA1501001600534 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that the respondent’s apparent phishing attempt provides further indication that the respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). The Panel notes that the disputed domain name’s resolving website serves for a phishing scheme evidenced by the email provided by Complainant. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in compliance with Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. 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 name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant first argues Respondent acted in bad faith because Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant, which disrupts Complainant’s business. Using a disputed domain name to disrupt a complainant’s business may indicate bad faith. See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant’s CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”); see also Chevron Intellectual Property, LLC v. Jack Brooks, FA 1635967 (Forum Oct. 6, 2015) (finding that Respondent’s use of <chevron-corps.com> to impersonate an executive of Complainant in emails is in opposition to Complainant and is therefore in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). The Panel recalls that Complainant provides the Panel with a screenshot of the disputed domain name’s resolving website which mimics the website of Complainant’s legitimate website, along with a victim’s email. Therefore, the Panel determines that Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant and attempts to attract users for commercial gain by passing off as Complainant and disrupts Complainant’s business. The Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per 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 <intigers.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated:  February 9, 2022

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page