Ripple Labs Inc. v. oryx coin
Claim Number: FA1709001751089
Complainant is Ripple Labs Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Rachel Jacques of Maschoff Brennan, Utah, USA. Respondent is oryx coin (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ripplefuture.com>, registered with BigRock Solutions Ltd..
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 September 27, 2017; the Forum received payment on September 27, 2017.
On September 28, 2017, BigRock Solutions Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <ripplefuture.com> domain name is registered with BigRock Solutions Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. BigRock Solutions Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the BigRock Solutions Ltd. 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 September 28, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 18, 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@ripplefuture.com. Also on September 28, 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 October 20, 2017, 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, Ripple Labs Inc., uses the RIPPLE mark to provide and market its financial products and services.
Complainant has rights in the RIPPLE mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 4,453,543, registered Dec. 24, 2013).
Respondent’s <ripplefuture.com> is identical or confusingly similar as it contains Complainant’s RIPPLE mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive term “future” along with the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <ripplefuture.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not granted respondent permission or license to use the RIPPLE mark for any purpose. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Rather, the <ripplefuture.com> domain name is being used to pass off as Complainant and divert Internet users to Respondent’s website which purports to offer services which directly compete with services offered by Complainant.
Respondent has registered and used the <ripplefuture.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent is offering competing services with the intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain. Additionally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the RIPPLE mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the RIPPLE mark through its registration of such mark with the USPTO.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademarks in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in its relevant trademarks.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant so that it may divert internet users to Respondent’s website. Respondent’s <ripplefuture.com> website offers services which directly compete with services offered by 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 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s registration of the RIPPLE mark with the USPTO, as well as its other registrations worldwide, establish Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See T-Mobile USA, Inc. dba MetroPCS v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA 1627542 (Forum Aug. 9, 2015) (finding that Complainant has rights in the METROPCS mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office).
Respondent’s <ripplefuture.com> domain name contains Complainant’s RIPPLE mark with the generic term “future” added thereto. The top level domain name, “.com,” is appended to the “ripplefuture” string to complete the domain name. The differences between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark fail to differentiate one from the other for the purpose of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STEELCASE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word “advisors” and the gTLD “.com” did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
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 is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there is no evidence supporting a finding pursuant to Policy 4(c) that Respondent has rights or interests in the at-issue domain name, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “oryx coin.” The record before the Panel contains no evidence that might otherwise tend to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the at-issue domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration); see also, 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).
Furthermore, Respondent uses the <ripplefuture.com> domain name to divert internet users to Respondent’s website. Such website offers services that directly compete with those offered by Complainant. The use of an at-issue domain name to advertise or promote the Respondent’s own business, from which the respondent presumably financially benefits, is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent’s own website for commercial gain does not constitute either 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)); see also General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute 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).”)
Given the foregoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
As mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses the confusingly similar at-issue domain name to divert internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent’s website. Doing so disrupts Complainant’s business and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the <ripplefuture.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Next, the domain name is clearly used so that Respondent may inappropriately commercially benefit from the goodwill found in Complainant’s RIPPLE trademark, further demonstrating Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Miles, FA 105890 (Forum May 31, 2002) (“Respondent is using the domain name at issue to resolve to a website at which Complainant’s trademarks and logos are prominently displayed. Respondent has done this with full knowledge of Complainant’s business and trademarks. The Panel finds that this conduct is that which is prohibited by Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”).
Additionally, the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark in its relevant sphere of commerce in conjunction with Respondent’s lack of any connection with Complainant or the RIPPLE trademark suggests “opportunistic bad faith.” Respondent’s objective is to employ the at-issue domain name to trick internet users into believing it, and Respondent’s website where the <ripplefuture.com> domain name ultimately resolves, are sponsored by Complainant when they are not. Indeed, Respondent has no affiliation with Complainant but nevertheless opportunistically uses the trademark laden <ripplefuture.com> domain name for its own commercial benefit. See Harrods Ltd. v. Harrod’s Closet, D2001-1027 (WIPO Sept. 28, 2001) (finding that where a mark is so “obviously connected with well-known products,” its very use by someone with no connection to these products can evidence opportunistic bad faith); see also, Google Inc. v. Ahmed Humood, FA1411001591796 (Forum Jan. 7, 2015) (“This Panel makes that inference; Respondent has actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark at the time of domain name registration based on the fame of Complainant’s GOOGLE mark and Respondent’s use of one of the disputed domain names to detail Internet domain name registration and maintenance services related to an in competition with Complainant.)
Finally, Respondent registered <ripplefuture.com> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the RIPPLE mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s use of the domain to divert potential customers to Respondent’s website. It is thus clear that Respondent intentionally registered the at-issue domain name to improperly exploit its trademark value, rather than for some benign reason. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <ripplefuture.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ripplefuture.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: October 22, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page