Bittrex, Inc. v. Not disclosed Not disclosed / IceNetworks Ltd.
Claim Number: FA1808001800981
Complainant is Bittrex, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Patchen M. Haggerty of Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is Not disclosed Not disclosed / IceNetworks Ltd. (“Respondent”), Iceland.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bittrex-a.com>, registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 10, 2018; the Forum received payment on August 10, 2018.
On August 13, 2018, Internet Domain Service BS Corp confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bittrex-a.com> domain name is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Internet Domain Service BS Corp has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet Domain Service BS Corp 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 15, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 4, 2018 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@bittrex-a.com. Also on August 15, 2018, 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 6, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <bittrex-a.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITTREX mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <bittrex-a.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <bittrex-a.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Bittrex, Inc., is a U.S.-based company that uses the BITTREX mark to operate a cryptocurrency exchange. Complainant holds a registration for the BITTREX mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 5,380,786, registered Jan. 16, 2018).
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 17, 2018, and uses it to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme.
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 Panel finds that Complainant has established sufficient rights to the BITTREX mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 5,380,786, registered Jan. 16, 2018). 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 <bittrex-a.com> domain name contains Complainant’s BITTREX mark and adds a hyphen, the letter “a,” and the “.com” gTLD. These changes do not distinguish the disputed from the mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. XINXIU ZENG / haimin liang, FA 1736365 (Forum July 19, 2017) (finding that the addition of punctuation—specifically, a hyphen—did not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from complainant’s registered mark); see also Bank of America Corporation v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1629452 (Forum Aug. 18, 2015) (finding that the <blankofamerica.com> domain name contains the entire BANK OF AMERICA mark and merely adds the gTLD ‘.com’ and the letter ‘l’ to create a common misspelling of the word ‘bank.’); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them.”). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s <bittrex-a.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITTREX mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <bittrex-a.com> domain name, and is not commonly known by the domain name. The WHOIS identifies “Not disclosed Not disclosed / IceNetworks Ltd.” as the registrant. Complainant states that Respondent has never been legitimately affiliated with Complainant, and has no permission to use the BITTREX mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <bittrex-a.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also 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).
Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the <bittrex-a.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant to engage in a phishing scheme. Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpage, which contains Complainant’s BITTREX mark and a login box, the same content displayed on Complainant’s own webpage. Complainant also provides a screenshot of the warning page it received when attempting to access the disputed domain name, indicating Respondent engages in phishing. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant to fraudulently phish for information, failing to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Google Inc. v. Pritam Singh / Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd., FA 1660771 (Forum March 17, 2016) (agreeing that respondent has not shown any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) as the respondent used the complainant’s mark and logo on a resolving website containing offers for technical support and password recovery services, and soliciting Internet users’ personal information).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <bittrex-a.com> domain name in bad faith by creating a likelihood for confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name for its own commercial gain. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent attempts to commercially benefit from using Complainant’s mark in a phishing scheme, in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). The Panel further finds that Respondent’s attempt to pass off as Complainant and to phish for information is also evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“Respondent uses the <klabzuba-oilgas.com> domain to engage in phishing, which means Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Complainant contends that Respondent must have had actual knowledge of the mark based on Respondent’s use of the BITTREX mark on the resolving website. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, demonstrating bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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 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 <bittrex-a.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: September 10, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page