Chia Network, Inc. v. abdulla gainulin / Time Bank
Claim Number: FA2107001954582
Complainant is Chia Network, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Mark A. Steiner of Duane Morris, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is abdulla gainulin / Time Bank (“Respondent”), Russian Federation.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <chianetwork.app>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
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 July 9, 2021; the Forum received payment on July 9, 2021.
On July 12, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <chianetwork.app> 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 July 12, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 2, 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@chianetwork.app. Also on July 12, 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 August 4, 2021, 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, Chia Network, Inc. operates a cryptocurrency trading platform.
Complainant has rights in the CHIA mark through its registration with the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”).
Respondent’s <chianetwork.app> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHIA mark, only differing by the addition of the generic term “network” and the “.app” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <chianetwork.app> domain name as it is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name and is neither an authorized user nor a licensee of the CHIA mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offer of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to deceive Internet users into thinking they are purchasing Complainant’s legitimate cryptocurrency.
Respondent registered and uses the <chianetwork.app> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass off as Complainant and deceive Internet users to create confusion about the ownership of the at-issue domain name, demonstrating bad faith attraction for commercial gain. Complainant also contends that Respondent registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CHIA mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in CHIA.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the CHIA trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that passes itself off as Complainant and pretends to offer Complainant’s product for sale.
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”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s WIPO registration of its CHIA mark establishes Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy 4(a)(i). See ECCO SKO A/S v. Bobrov Danila, FA 1770718 (Forum Mar. 12, 2018) (“Complainant has rights in the ECCO mark based on a series of trademark registrations via the Madrid Protocol through the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”)). Complainant provides evidence of its registration with the WIPO (e.g., Reg. 1,446,696, registered June 28, 2018).
The at-issue domain name contains Complainant’s CHIA trademark followed by the term “network” and is concluded with the top level domain name “.app.” The differences between Respondent’s <chianetwork.app> domain name and Complainant’s CHIA trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <chianetwork.app> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHIA trademark. See Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“Respondent merely adds the term ‘supports’ and a ‘.org’ gTLD to the DELL mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL mark per 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 failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name.
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “abdulla gainulin / Time Bank” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <chianetwork.app>. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <chianetwork.app> domain name for the purposes of 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).
Additionally, Respondent uses the confusingly similar <chianetwork.app> domain name pass itself off as Complainant to address a website adorned with Complainant’s trademarks that offers fraudulent cryptocurrency trading services. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and offer services that appear to compete with Complainant indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name “resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant’s own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant”); see also Fadal Engineering, LLC v. DANIEL STRIZICH,INDEPENDENT TECHNOLOGY SERVICE INC, FA 1581942 (Forum Nov. 13, 2014) (finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain to sell products related to Complainant without authorization “does not amount to 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).”).
Given the forgoing, 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 under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <chianetwork.app> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present which lead the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
Respondent uses its confusingly similar <chianetwork.app> domain name to address a website which is designed to pass itself off as sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant when it is not, as well as to offer internet visitors fraudulent cryptocurrency for Respondent’s commercial gain. Using the domain name to create the false impression of affiliation with Complainant to trade on Complainant’s mark and to disrupt Complainant’s business shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the <chianetwork.app> domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Fitness International, LLC v. ALISTAIR SWODECK / VICTOR AND MURRAY, FA1506001623644 (Forum July 9, 2015) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to operate a website that purports to offer health club related services such as fitness experts, fitness models, fitness venues, exercise programs, and personal training, all of which are the exact services offered by Complainant. Doing so causes customer confusion, disrupts Complainant’s business, and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also 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.”).
Moreover, Respondent registered <chianetwork.app> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the CHIA mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s use of the domain name to impersonate Complainant and exploit Complainant’s CHIA trademark as discussed elsewhere herein. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <chianetwork.app> 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 <chianetwork.app> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: August 5, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page