Altegris Services, LLC v. alt invest
Claim Number: FA2201001982313
Complainant is Altegris Services, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Tracy Katz Muhl of Fox, Swibel, Levin & Carroll LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is alt invest (“Respondent”), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <altegriis.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 27, 2022; the Forum received payment on January 27, 2022.
On January 27, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <altegriis.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 January 31, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 22, 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@altegriis.com. Also on January 31, 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 24, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant offers commodity pools and alternative financial investments to consumers.
Complainant has rights in the ALTEGRIS mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <altegriis.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALTEGRIS mark. Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds an additional “i” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <altegriis.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the ALTEGRIS mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant in hopes to gather internet users’ personal information.
Respondent registered and used the <altegriis.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Respondent by making use of the ALTEGRIS trademark and a phony website. Respondent pretends to offer similar services to those offered by Complainant, defrauds third-parties, and phishes for personal data.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in the ALTEGRIS mark.
Respondent has not been authorized to Complainant’s trademark.
Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in ALTEGRIS.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and facilitate fraud.
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 at-issue domain is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s USPTO registration of ALTEGRIS is sufficient to establish Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, “Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”).
The at-issue domain name contains a misspelling of Complainant’s ALTEGRIS trademark wherein an extra “i” is inserted into the mark. The misspelled trademark is followed by the top-level domain name “com.” The differences between the <altegriis.com> domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that <altegriis.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALTEGRIS mark. See Western Alliance Bancorporation v. James Brandon, FA 1783001 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“Respondent’s <westernalliancebcorporation.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WESTERN ALLIANCE BANCORPORATION mark because it merely appends the gTLD ‘.info’ to a misspelled version of Complainant’s mark.”); see also Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Domain Administrator / China Capital Investment Limited, FA 1734230 (Forum July 17, 2017) (“The addition of letters—particularly of those that create a common misspelling—fails to sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a registered mark.”).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
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. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
The WHOIS information for <altegriis.com> indicates that “alt invest” is the domain name’s registrant. Further, there is nothing in the record that shows that Respondent is otherwise known by the <altegriis.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s <altegriis.com> domain name is used to facilitate a scheme whereby Respondent passes itself off as Complainant in an attempt to induce <altegriis.com> website visitors to purchase financial products from Respondent and disclose private personal information. Complainant shows that Respondent receives funds from website visitors but fails to deliver. Respondent’s scheme is enabled via a webpage addressed by the at-issue domain name that presents itself as being sponsored by Complainant and by misappropriating Complainant official website content and design toward that end. Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name to defraud third parties and phish for private information is indicative of neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(iii). See Capital One Fin. Corp. v. Howel, FA 289304 (Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (defining “phishing” as “a practice that is intended to defraud consumers into revealing personal and proprietary information”); see also 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).”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
Respondent’s <altegriis.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present that compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent has acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First, Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance defrauding third parties and perpetrating a phishing scheme shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iv) and otherwise. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”); see also United States Postal Service v. kyle javier, FA 1787265 (Forum June 12, 2018) (“Use of a domain name to phish for Internet users’ personal information is evidence of bad faith.”).
Moreover, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the mistyped string in a domain name hoping that internet users will inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services associated with the target trademark and/or will read the misspelled trademark laden domain name and confuse it with its target trademark or relevant website. As all can see, the at-issue domain name contains Complainant’s ALTEGRIS trademark with an added letter “i” thus making the domain name easily mistaken for both Complainant’s ALTEGRIS trademark and for its official website at <altegriis.com>. Respondent’s typosquatting, in itself, is evidence of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith. See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sept. 7, 2018) (“Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use.”); see also LifeLock, Inc. v. Adam Viener / ThunkTunk LLC, FA1409001579875 (Forum Oct. 28, 2014) (“As the Panel has noted above, at the conclusion of its findings under the first Policy element under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the disputed domain name <lifelocl.com> differs from the LIFELOCK mark only by substituting the letter ‘L’ for the letter ‘K’ in the LOCK-portion of Complainant’s registered mark. The Panel finds this behavior amounts to typosquatting, and as such the Panel finds this to be evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <altegriis.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: February 25, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page