Bittrex, Inc. v. JESSICA CANDIDO BARRETO
Claim Number: FA1903001832403
Complainant is Bittrex, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Patchen M. Haggerty of Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is JESSICA CANDIDO BARRETO (“Respondent”), Brazil.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bittrex-sc.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
Petter Rindforth as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 4, 2019; the Forum received payment on March 4, 2019.
On March 5, 2019, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bittrex-sc.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 March 5, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 25, 2019 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-sc.com. Also on March 5, 2019, 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 March 26, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Petter Rindforth 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
The Complainant is a U.S. based company that operates one of the leading cryptocurrency exchanges in the world under the BITTREX trademark. Complainant registered the BITTREX trademark with multiple registries including the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 016727109, registered Oct. 13, 2017) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 5,380,786, registered on Jan. 16, 2018). Respondent’s <bittrex-sc.com> domain name is confusingly similar as it incorporates Complainant’s entire BITTREX mark, merely adding a hyphen, the letters “sc”, and appends the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <bittrex-sc.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s BITTREX trademark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent’s resolving webpage is designed to impersonate Complainant in order to phish for personal information belonging to Complainant’s users.
Respondent registered or uses the <bittrex-sc.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant for Respondent’s commercial gain. Respondent also uses the disputed domain name to host a phishing scheme. Furthermore, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademark when it registered the <bittrex-sc.com> domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations:
United Kingdom National Trademark Registration No UK00003231077 BITTREX (word), registered May 15, 2017 for goods and services in classes 9, 36 and 42;
European Union Trade Mark Registration No 016727109 BITTREX (word), registered October 13, 2017 for goods and services in classes 9, 36 and 42; and
U.S. Trademark Registration No 5380786 BITTREX (word), registered January 16, 2018.
Respondent registered the <bittrex-sc.com> domain name on February 4, 2019.
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 Complainant asserts rights in the BITTREX trademark based upon registrations with the EUIPO (e.g. Reg. No. 016727109, registered October 13, 2017), the UKIPO (e.g. Reg. No. 3231077, registered on May 15, 2017) and the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 5,380,786, registered on January 16, 2018).
Registration of a trademark with multiple national or international trademark offices is sufficient to establish rights in said trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Astute, Inc. v. Raviprasath C / Astute Solution Pvt Ltd, FA 1546283 (Forum Apr. 9, 2014) (finding that registrations with two major trademark agencies is evidence enough of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) rights in the ASTUTE SOLUTIONS mark.). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the BITTREX trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant next claims that Respondent’s <bittrex-sc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. Specifically, Complainant argues Respondent merely adds random letters, a hyphen, and a gTLD to Complainant’s BITTREX trademark. The addition of letters, a hyphen, and a gTLD do not negate any confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See AbbVie Inc. v. Season Advertising, S.L., FA1704001727071 (Forum Jun. 12, 2017) (finding confusing similarity where the disputed domain name <abbvie-hcv.com> incorporated complainant’s entire mark and appended “a hyphen, followed by two or three additional letters and the gTLD ‘.com’”). The Panel notes that the acronym “SC” is commonly used for online services, where it can stand for, for example, “Service Center”, “Source Code”, “Smart Card”, “SnapChat”, “Service Control”, or even “Security Check”. None of these meanings are enough to differ the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark. If at all taken into consideration, it rather adds to the confusing similarity by indicating that it is related to the Complainant’s online services. Therefore, the Panel agree with Complainant and find that the <bittrex-sc.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITTREX trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations in respect of the second element of the Policy, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”).
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <bittrex-sc.com> domain name. Specifically Complainant argues Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use the BITTREX trademark and 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 under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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 trademark.). The WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “JESSICA CANDIDO BARRETO / JESSICA CANDIDO BARRETO,” and there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the BITTREX trademark. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Additionally, Complainant argues that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Instead, Complainant claims that Respondent uses the <bittrex-sc.com> domain name to pass off as Complainant in order to perpetrate a phishing scheme. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant to conduct a phishing scheme is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Virtu Financial Operating, LLC v. Lester Lomax, FA1409001580464 (Forum Nov. 14, 2014) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to phish for Internet users personal information by offering a fake job posting on the resolving website). Complainant argues that Respondent uses the <bittrex-sc.com> domain name as part of a fraudulent phishing scheme to obtain customer information by replicating Complainant’s login page formerly associated with its own website, thereby impersonating Complainant. Complainant provides screenshots of its former login page along with the website located at the disputed domain name to evince this assertion. Therefore, the Panel finds that such use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered or uses the <bittrex-sc.com> in bad faith as Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant for Respondent’s commercial gain. Use of a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant for a respondent’s commercial gain may indeed evince a finding of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 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.”). Complainant asserts that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website that directly copies Complainant’s former website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant. Complainant provides screenshots of its former login page along with the website located at the disputed domain name to evince this assertion. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the <bittrex-sc.com> domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Next, Complainant contends Respondent uses the disputed domain name to carry out a phishing scheme. Use of a disputed domain name in connection with a phishing scheme is not considered a good faith use per 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).”). As noted above, Complainant contends Respondent hosts a website that is visually identical to that hosted by Complainant at its former domain, in an attempt to gain the personal login information of Internet users that mistake Respondent’s resolving website for Complainant’s own. The Panel agrees with Complainant and finds that Respondent’s apparent phishing scheme provides evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent registered the <bittrex-sc.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BITTREX mark. Registering a domain name with knowledge of another’s rights therein may be indicative of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Norgren GmbH v. Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft, FA1501001599884 (Forum Feb. 25, 2014) (holding that the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant and its rights in the mark, thus demonstrating bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to purposely host links related to the complainant’s field of operation). In this case, the Complainant argues that Respondent’s knowledge of Complainant’s mark prior to registering <bittrex-sc.com> is apparent from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s use of the domain name to host a look-alike website which features Complainant’s mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the <bittrex-sc.com> domain name with actual knowledge of the Complainant’s BITTREX trademark, thus demonstrating bad faith per 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-sc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Petter Rindforth, Panelist
Dated: April 8, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page