Ripple Labs Inc. v. MIKE JOHN
Claim Number: FA1708001746236
Complainant is Ripple Labs Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Rachel Jacques of Maschoff Brennan, Utah, USA. Respondent is MIKE JOHN (“Respondent”), Maryland, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ripple-migration.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her 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 August 25, 2017; the Forum received payment on August 25, 2017.
On August 25, 2017, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <ripple-migration.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 August 25, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 14, 2017 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@ripple-migration.com. Also on August 25, 2017, 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 September 19, 2017, 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 it is in the traditional and virtual currency business. Complainant is the owner of various registered trademarks for its RIPPLE brand. Complainant registered the RIPPLE trademark on numerous occasions, including in the United States in 2013.
According to Complainant, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates the RIPPLE mark and merely adds a hyphen with a generic term “migration” along with the “.com” generic top level domain (“gTLD”).
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not a licensee nor associated with Complainant. According to the WHOIS, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent makes no bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Instead, the domain name resolves to a web site that passes off as Complainant and attempts to obtain personal information from Complainant’s users.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and is using disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent was well-aware of Complainant’s mark and its migration plans. It mimicked Complainant’s page in order to conduct a phishing scheme. Respondent was never authorized to use Complainant’s mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark RIPPLE, with rights dating back to at least 2013.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2017.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks.
The disputed domain name resolves to a web page that displays Complainant’s mark and attempts to obtain personal information from Complainant’s users.
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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RIPPLE mark because the addition of the hyphen, the generic term “migration,” and the “.com” gTLD are insufficient to create a difference. See Nikon, Inc. v. Technilab, Inc., D2000-1774 (WIPO Feb. 26, 2001) (holding that confusing similarity under the Policy is decided upon the inclusion of a trademark in the domain name rather than upon the likelihood of confusion test under U.S. trademark law); see also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding that the addition of the generic term “finance,” which described the complainant’s financial services business, as well as a gTLD, did not sufficiently distinguish the respondent’s disputed domain name from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark.); see also 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). In the instant case, the WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Mike John,” which is nothing like the disputed domain name. Thus the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Further, Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Instead, Respondent fraudulently attempted to pass itself off as Complainant in order to gain users’ sensitive and personal information. The resolving web page had the appearance of Complainant’s “Official Migration Page” and users would be confused as to the source. Procuring personal information for a nefarious use does not constitute as a legitimate use of the disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in a domain name with which it conducted a phishing scheme to procure “Internet users’ personal information”). Consequently, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii) and that Respondent has no 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 names.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant and uses the resolving web page to attempt to obtain personal information from Complainant’s users. This is evidence of bad faith use under the Policy. See Capital One Fin. Corp. & Capital One Bank v. Howel, FA 289304 (Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (“The <capitalonebank.biz> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, it is being used to redirect Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s credit application website, and it is being used to fraudently [sic] acquire personal information from Complainant’s clients. Respondent’s use of the domain name supports findings of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <ripple-migration.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: September 19, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page