DECISION

Robinhood Markets, Inc. v. Palmo Mello / fsfsfd

Claim Number: FA2102001933414

PARTIES

Complainant is Robinhood Markets, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David K. Caplan of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Palmo Mello / fsfsfd (“Respondent”), Ukraine.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <robinhood-trade.com>, <robinhood-trading.com>, <robinhood-online.com>, <robinhood-official.com>, <robinhood-usa.com>, and <robinhood-us.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.

PANEL

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.

John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 24, 2021; the Forum received payment on February 24, 2021.

On February 25, 2021, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <robinhood-trade.com>, <robinhood-trading.com>, <robinhood-online.com>, <robinhood-official.com>, <robinhood-usa.com>, and <robinhood-us.com> domain names are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 1, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 22, 2021 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@robinhood-trade.com, postmaster@robinhood-trading.com, postmaster@robinhood-online.com, postmaster@robinhood-official.com, postmaster@robinhood-usa.com, postmaster@robinhood-us.com. Also on March 1, 2021, 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 24, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1. Complainant, Robinhood Markets Inc., owns and operates an online financial services and commission-free investing company. Complainant has rights in the ROBINHOOD mark based upon the registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,761,666, registered June 23, 2015). See Compl. Ex. H. Respondent’s <robinhood-trade.com>, <robinhood-trading.com>, <robinhood-online.com>, <robinhood-official.com>, <robinhood-usa.com>, and <robinhood-us.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because they each include the entirety of the ROBINHOOD mark, simply adding the one of the generic terms “trade,” “trading,” “online,” “official,” “usa,” or “us,” a hyphen, and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).

2. Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent has no relationship with Complainant and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Additionally, Respondent doesn’t use the disputed domains for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent mimics Complainant’s webpage in furtherance of phishing.

3. Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent passes off as Complainant to collect confidential account information from users. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ROBINHOOD mark at the time the disputed domain names were registered.

B. Respondent

1. Respondent did not submit a response.

FINDINGS

1. Respondent’s <robinhood-trade.com>, <robinhood-trading.com>, <robinhood-online.com>, <robinhood-official.com>, <robinhood-usa.com>, and <robinhood-us.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROBINHOOD mark.

2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <robinhood-trade.com>, <robinhood-trading.com>, <robinhood-online.com>, <robinhood-official.com>, <robinhood-usa.com>, and <robinhood-us.com> domain names.

3. Respondent registered or used the <robinhood-trade.com>, <robinhood-trading.com>, <robinhood-online.com>, <robinhood-official.com>, <robinhood-usa.com>, and <robinhood-us.com> domain names in bad faith.

DISCUSSION

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”).

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant asserts rights in the ROBINHOOD mark based upon the registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,761,666, registered June 23, 2015). See Compl. Ex. H. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is generally sufficient to establish rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Since Complainant provides evidence of registration of the ROBINHOOD mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Complainant argues that Respondent’s <robinhood-trade.com>, <robinhood-trading.com>, <robinhood-online.com>, <robinhood-official.com>, <robinhood-usa.com>, and <robinhood-us.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because they each include the entirety of the ROBINHOOD mark, simply adding the one of the generic terms “trade,” “trading,” “online,” “official,” “usa,” or “us,” a hyphen, and the “.com” gTLD. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), addition of a generic or geographic term, a hyphen, and a gTLD is insufficient to negate confusing similarity between a domain name and the mark it incorporates. See Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Svensson Viljae, FA 1784650 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding confusing similarity where “[t]he disputed domain name <skechers-outlet.com> adds a hyphen and the generic term ‘outlet’ to Complainant's registered SKECHERS mark, and appends the ‘.com’ top-level domain.”); see also Doosan Corporation v. philippe champain, FA 1636675 (Forum Oct. 13, 2015) (finding that geographic designations or terms descriptive of a complainant’s business operations do not remove a domain name from the realm of confusing similarity.). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the ROBINHOOD mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. 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 does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <robinhood-trade.com>, <robinhood-trading.com>, <robinhood-online.com>, <robinhood-official.com>, <robinhood-usa.com>, and <robinhood-us.com> domain names because Respondent has no relationship with Complainant and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. When no response is submitted, WHOIS information can be used to show that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See H-D U.S.A., LLC, v. ilyas Aslan / uok / Domain Admin ContactID 5645550 / FBS INC / Whoisprotection biz, FA 1785313 (Forum June 25, 2018) (“The publicly available WHOIS information identifies Respondent as ‘Ilyas Aslan’ and so there is no prima facie evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by either of the [<harleybot.bid> and <harleybot.com>] domain names.”). The WHOIS information of record notes “Palmo Mello / fsfsfd” as the registrant and no other information suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Amend. Compl. Ex. A. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

Complainant also argues that Respondent doesn’t use the disputed domains for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use but rather mimics Complainant’s webpage in furtherance of phishing. Replication of a complainant’s website to promote confusion and phish for user information is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See ShipChain, Inc. v. 谢东东 / 谢东东, FA 1785189 (Forum June 21, 2018) (“The resolving webpages between Complainant’s and Respondent’s websites are virtually the same. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not confer rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).”); see also Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Mita Irelant Ltd., FA 1314998 (Forum Apr. 30, 2010) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s attempt to “phish” for users’ personal information is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent’s webpages, claiming that Respondent mirrors Complainant’s webpage to phish for confidential user account information. See Compl. Ex. J. Thus, the Panel agrees with Complainant and finds that Respondent is not using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered and uses the <robinhood-trade.com>, <robinhood-trading.com>, <robinhood-online.com>, <robinhood-official.com>, <robinhood-usa.com>, and <robinhood-us.com> domain names in bad faith because Respondent passes off as Complainant to collect confidential account information from users. Use of a disputed domain to pass off as a complainant in furtherance of phishing supports a finding of bad faith per 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.”); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Maniac State, FA 608239 (Forum Jan. 19, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was using the <wellsbankupdate.com> domain name in order to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of the complainant’s customers). As previously noted, Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent’s webpages, claiming that Respondent mirrors Complainant’s webpage to phish for confidential user account information. See Compl. Ex. J. Therefore, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ROBINHOOD mark at the time the disputed domain names were registered. Actual knowledge of a Complainant’s rights in a mark evidences bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), and may be shown by the prominence of the mark and the use a respondent makes of the mark. See United States Postal Service v. Yongkun Wang, FA 1788170 (Forum July 11, 2018) (finding Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the USPS mark “given the widespread use of Complainant’s mark and the fact that Respondent registered four separate domain names all of which include Complainant’s USPS mark in its entirety”); see also Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum Jan. 5, 2018) (“[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used that as an email address to pass itself off as Complainant shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration.”). Complainant claims that Respondent must have had knowledge of Complainant’s mark based on the fame of the ROBINHOOD mark and Respondent’s registration of multiple domains incorporating the mark. The Panel agrees that actual knowledge is present and finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <robinhood-trade.com>, <robinhood-trading.com>, <robinhood-online.com>, <robinhood-official.com>, <robinhood-usa.com>, and <robinhood-us.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

John J. Upchurch, Panelist

Dated: April 7, 2021