HDR Global Trading Limited v. feu li
Claim Number: FA2206001999074
Complainant is HDR Global Trading Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Mary D. Hallerman of SNELL & WILMER L.L.P, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is feu li (“Respondent”), Hong Kong.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bitmex.cyou>, registered with Key-Systems GmbH.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 3, 2022; the Forum received payment on June 3, 2022.
On June 7, 2022, Key-Systems GmbH confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bitmex.cyou> domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Key-Systems GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems GmbH 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 June 8, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 28, 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@bitmex.cyou. Also on June 8, 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 July 3, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that owns and operates a leading and prominent cryptocurrency-based virtual trading platform marketed to millions of consumers around the world in five languages. Complainant has been 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. Today, Complainant’s business has grown to average between $1 billion and $5 billion of trading volume per day. With an annual trading volume of $1 trillion, Complainant is one of the largest trading platforms in the world, and it serves customers all over the world. Complainant has rights in the BITMEX mark through its registrations with various trademark agencies throughout the world, including in the European Union in 2017.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its BITMEX mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the “.cyou” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its BITMEX mark in any way. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website displayed Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo and purported to offer competing services.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent passed off as Complainant and offered competing content on the disputed domain name’s resolving website. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BITMEX mark. Respondent failed to respond to Complainant’s cease-and-desist letters.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns rights in the mark BITMEX dating back to 2017 and uses it to operate a cryptocurrency-based virtual trading platform.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2022.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The resolving website displayed Complainant’s mark and logo and purported to offer competing services.
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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s BITMEX mark in its entirety and merely adds the “.cyou” gTLD. Adding a gTLD to a mark is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Privacy protection service - whoisproxy.ru, FA 1759828 (Forum Jan. 12, 2018) (“The Panel here finds that the <bittrex.market> domain name is identical to the BITTREX mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).”). Therefore if the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its BITMEX mark in any way. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) relevant WHOIS Information may demonstrate that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <appbittrex.com> domain name where the WHOIS information listed Respondent as “Operi Manaha,” and nothing else in the record suggested Respondent was authorized to use the BITTREX mark.). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant as “feu li”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving website displayed Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo and purported to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), using a disputed domain name pass off as a Complainant and offer competing goods or services is generally not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) (“Because [the] respondent in this case is also attempting to pass itself off as [the] complainant, presumably for financial gain, the Panel finds the respondent is not using the <mortgageresearchcenter.org> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent used the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and offer competing services. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv), passing off as a Complainant and hosting competing content on a disputed domain name’s resolving website is generally considered evidence of bad faith disruption for commercial gain. See Gen. Media Commc’ns, Inc. v. Vine Ent., FA 96554 (Forum Mar. 26, 2001) (finding bad faith where a competitor of the complainant registered and used a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s PENTHOUSE mark to host a pornographic web site); see also Russell & Bromley Limited v. Li Wei Wei, FA 1752021 (Forum Nov. 17, 2017) (finding the respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith because it used the name to pass off as the complainant and offer for sale competitive, counterfeit goods). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving website displayed Complainant’s mark and logo. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under 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 <bitmex.cyou> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: July 5, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page