Coinbase, Inc. v. Anonymize, Inc.
Claim Number: FA2108001958522
Complainant is Coinbase, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David M. Kelly of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Anonymize, Inc. (“Respondent”), Washington, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <coinbas.com>, <coinbasr.com>, <wwwcoinbase.com>, <conibase.com>, <coingase.com>, <cooinbase.com>, <ciinbase.com>, and <cojnbase.com>, registered with Epik 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.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 6, 2021; the Forum received payment on August 6, 2021.
On August 10, 2021, Epik Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <coinbas.com>, <coinbasr.com>, <wwwcoinbase.com>, <conibase.com>, <coingase.com>, <cooinbase.com>, <ciinbase.com>, and <cojnbase.com> domain names (the Domain Names) are registered with Epik Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Epik Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Epik 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 August 11, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of August 31, 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@coinbas.com, postmaster@coinbasr.com, postmaster@wwwcoinbase.com, postmaster@conibase.com, postmaster@coingase.com, postmaster@cooinbase.com, postmaster@ciinbase.com, postmaster@cojnbase.com. Also on August 11, 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 September 2, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE DOMAIN NAMES
The Complaint relates to eight Domain Names. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” Complainant alleges that all of the Domain Names are effectively controlled by the same person. It notes that the Domain Names are all similarly typosquatted versions of Complainant’s COINBASE mark, they are all privately registered through the same registrar as shown in the registrar’s verification to the Forum and in the WHOIS reports submitted as Complaint Exhibit 1, three of the Domain Names have been used for the same impersonation and phishing activities, and the remaining Domain Names are hosted on the same IP address and by the same ISP (printout from InfobyIp.com showing use of the same IP address and same ISP for all eight Domain Names). On these facts the Panel finds that all eight Domain Names are registered to the same person or entity or are under common control. Caterpillar v. Arendt, FA1805001789701 (Forum July 2, 2018), (“The Panel finds that the domain names are under common control because the three domain names are constructed in the same manner, were registered on the same date with the same registrar, have been used in the same way, and use Cloudflare servers. Also, the registrant used the same privacy service for all three domain names. These elements are sufficient to find that the domain names were registered by the same domain name holder.”). The Panel will proceed as to all of them.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a leading provider of end-to-end financial infrastructure and technology for the cryptoeconomy. It has rights in the COINBASE mark through its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <coinbas.com>, <coinbasr.com>, <wwwcoinbase.com>, <conibase.com>, <coingase.com>, <cooinbase.com>, <ciinbase.com>, and <cojnbase.com> Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s COINBASE mark because they incorporate Complainant’s mark with minor misspellings, merely adding the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. It has not been commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use its COINBASE mark in any way. Respondent is not using the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. It engages in typosquatting, uses some of the Domain Names to impersonate Complainant and phish for sensitive information from Complainant’s customers, uses some of the Domain Names to compete with Complainant, and is not making any active use of the other Domain Names.
Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith. It is attempting for commercial gain to attract Internet users to its web site by creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of that site, is disrupting the business of Complainant, and has registered the Domain Names to prevent Complainant from reflecting its mark in corresponding web sites. It is using some of the Domain Names to impersonate Complainant and phish for sensitive information from Complainant’s customers, and has engaged in typosquatting. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the COINBASE mark when it registered the Domain Names.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not to submit a Response in this proceeding.
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 a complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:
(1) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(2) the 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, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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. Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. 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”), WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0), at ¶ 4.3 (“In cases involving wholly unsupported and conclusory allegations advanced by the complainant, . . . panels may find that—despite a respondent’s default—a complainant has failed to prove its case.”).
The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding:
The COINBASE mark was registered to Complainant with the USPTO (Reg. No. 4,567,878) on July 15, 2014 (TESS record submitted as Complaint Exhibit 9). Complainant’s registration of its mark with the USPTO establishes its rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”).
Respondent’s <coinbas.com>, <coinbasr.com>, <wwwcoinbase.com>, <conibase.com>, <coingase.com>, <cooinbase.com>, <ciinbase.com>, and <cojnbase.com> Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s COINBASE mark. They all incorporate Complainant’s mark, either with minor misspellings or in one case with the additional letters “www,” and add the “.com” gTLD. These changes do not distinguish the Domain Names from Complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. zhang qin, FA 1626511 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (“The relevant comparison then resolves to the trademark, TWITCH, with the term, ‘titch,’ which, as can be readily seen, merely removes the letter ‘w’ from the trademark. In spite of that omission the compared integers remain visually and aurally very similar and so Panel finds them to be confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy.”), 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 WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 1.7, states that the test for confusing similarity “typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name.” Notwithstanding the changes described above, Complainant’s mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Names.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the COINBASE mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights.
If a complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden of production shifts to respondent to come forward with evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in it. 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”). If a respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant’s prima facie evidence will be sufficient to establish that respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent does come forward with such evidence, the Panel must assess the evidence in its entirety. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 2.1.
Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):
(i) Before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;
(ii) The respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) The respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names because (i) it has not been commonly known by the Domain Names, (ii) Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its COINBASE mark in any way (iii) Respondent is not using the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because it engages in typosquatting, it uses some of the Domain Names to impersonate Complainant and phish for sensitive information from Complainant’s customers, it uses some of the Domain Names to compete with Complainant, and it is not making any active use of the other Domain Names. These allegations are addressed as follows:
The WHOIS information furnished to the Forum by the registrar lists “Anonymize, Inc.” as the registrant of all of the Domain Names. This name bears no resemblance to any of the Domain Names. Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a domain name different from the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, however, and in cases where no response has been filed, UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same), 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 mark). The Panel is satisfied that Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Names for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant states that it has never authorized or permitted Respondent to use its mark. Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, and it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel. In the absence of evidence that a respondent is authorized to use a complainant’s mark in a domain name or that a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the respondent may be presumed to lack rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name), Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”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.”).
Next, by registering all but one of the Domain Names with subtle misspellings of Complainant’s mark, e.g., “coinbas,” “coinbasr” and “conibase,” Respondent is guilty of typosquatting, which is the intentional misspelling of a protected trademark to take advantage of typing errors made by Internet users seeking the web sites of the owners of the mark. Registering a typosquatted domain name has been held to evidence a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA1503001610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) (“Users might mistakenly reach Respondent’s resolving website by misspelling Complainant’s mark. Taking advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors, known as typosquatting, demonstrates a respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
Complainant uses its web site at <coinbase.com> in connection with its business operations (Screenshot submitted as Complaint Exhibit 6). A screenshot of Complainant’s sign-in pages for that web site is submitted as Complaint Exhibit 5. Complaint Exhibit 11 is a declaration prepared and signed by Leslie Gutowski, an internet and domain name specialist employed by the law firm representing Complainant in this matter. She states that on August 4, 2021 she entered the Domain Names <coinbas.com> and <coinbasr.com> into the address line of an internet browser and was redirected in both cases to a web site located at <conibase.pro>. She furnished screenshots of the pages of this web site, which prominently display Complainant’s COINBASE mark, and featured a sign-in page for both new and existing customers which in the former case solicited their password and in the latter case invited them to choose a password. These pages copied and mimicked exactly the sign-in pages appearing on Complainant’s web site as shown on Complaint Exhibit 5. They are virtually identical, with the same color scheme, the same layout and the same substantive content. They both prompt the visitor to enter his or her email address and password and click on the login prompt. Complainant alleges that the <conibase.pro> web site is sponsored and operated by Respondent and is the subject of another UDRP proceeding. Complainant offers no independent evidence in support of this allegation but it appears to be accurate because the two Domain Names noted above are sponsored and controlled by Respondent and they both redirect traffic to the <conibase.pro> site, which would likely not occur if that site were sponsored or controlled by some other person or entity. The allegation is plausible. It is not disputed or rendered questionable by any other evidence in the record, and the Panel takes it as true. If, because of the confusing similarity between these Domain Names and Complainant’s mark, a customer of Complainant mistakenly logs on to the Respondent’s web page and follows the prompts on it, Respondent acquires the means to log in to that customer’s account with Complainant and take whatever actions there it might desire. Passing off as a complainant in order to gain sensitive personal information constitutes phishing, which is defined as a fraudulent attempt to obtain sensitive information such as usernames, passwords and credit card details by disguising oneself as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication. Respondent is clearly using these two Domain Names to impersonate Complainant and engage in a fraudulent phishing scheme.[i] Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Google Inc. v. Pritam Singh / Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd., FA 1660771 (Forum Mar. 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).
Complaint Exhibits 12 and 13 are screenshots of the web sites resolving from the <wwwcoinbase.com>, <conibase.com>, <coingase.com>, <cooinbase.com>, <ciinbase.com>, and <cojnbase.com> Domain Names. The only content on these pages is the message “This page isn’t working.” These Domain Names are clearly inactive and are being passively held. Passively holding a confusingly similar domain name is evidence that the holder is not using that domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. xi long chen, FA 1786533 (Forum June 15, 2018) (“The disputed domain name resolves to a parked page with the message, “website coming soon!” The Panel finds that this use does not amount to a bona fide offering or good or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii) and Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect of the domain name.”).
The evidence furnished by Complainant establishes the required prima facie case. On that evidence, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names.
Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the respondent’s web site or location or of a product of service on the respondent‘s web site or location.
The evidence of Respondent’s conduct discussed above in the rights or legitimate interests analysis also supports a finding of bad faith registration and use, based upon one or more of the foregoing grounds articulated in the Policy and upon additional grounds adopted by UDRP panels over the years. Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names to phish for the login credentials of Complainant’s customers, presumably to enable it to login to their accounts with Complainant. The potential for theft and other mischief is obvious. This conduct amounts to attracting, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its web site and fits clearly within the circumstances articulated by Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 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).”).
Respondent’s fraudulent impersonation and phishing scheme also qualifies on its own as evidence of bad faith registration and use. Policy ¶ 4(b) acknowledges that mischief can manifest in many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. Worldwcom Exchange, Inc. v. Wei.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D-2004-0955 (January 5, 2005). The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and passing oneself off as a complainant to phish for sensitive private information from others has often been held to evidence bad faith registration and use. 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 alleges that Respondent’s conduct also falls within the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). That paragraph reads as follows: “you [the respondent] have registered the domain name primarily for the purposes of disrupting the business of a competitor” (emphasis supplied). Respondent is clearly competing with Complainant. Respondent is also disrupting the business of Complainant by using several Domain Names for passing off, fraudulent, and phishing activities, competing with Complainant for Internet traffic, and interfering with Complainant’s ability to control the use of its federally registered COINBASE mark. While Respondent and Complainant are presently competitors, however, there is another aspect of the concept of competition that must be considered. In order for a respondent’s conduct to fall within ¶ 4(b)(iii), the competition must exist before the domain name is registered. Otherwise, the language of ¶ 4(b)(iii), paraphrased as “you registered the domain name primarily to disrupt the business of a competitor,” would not apply. The competition must exist before the registration. In this case the Complainant and the Respondent were not competitors when the Domain Names were registered. Any actual competition between them arose only after Respondent registered and began using the Domain Names as it now is. Even then, it is questionable whether disrupting the Complainant’s business was Respondent’s primary purpose in registering the Domain Name. On the contrary, the evidence strongly suggests that Respondent’s primary motive was not so much to harass or burden an existing commercial adversary as it was to trade upon Complainant’s goodwill and reputation by creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of his site, which is properly addressed under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent’s conduct does not fall within the circumstances stated in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
That said, using a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet traffic to a web site which passes off as a complainant and engages in phishing wrongfully and unfairly disrupts the business of that complainant and is still bad faith. As discussed above, Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and using a confusingly similar domain name wrongfully to disrupt the business of a complainant is sufficient to meet the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondent’s primary intent in registering and using the Domain Names is less important than the effect of its conduct. Respondent knew or should have known the disruptive impact its conduct would have upon Complainant’s business. Respondent went forward with its plans in spite of that and this demonstrates bad faith independently of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Red Wing Shoe Company, Inc. v. wei zhang / Magdalena Jennifer / Mu Yan / Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA1911001873163 (Forum Jan. 3, 2020), Psyonix LLC v. Vasya Pupkin, FA2004001894087 (Forum June 3, 2020).
Next, it is evident that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s COINBASE mark between 2016 and 2020, when it registered the Domain Names (WHOIS reports on Domain Names submitted as Complaint Exhibit 1). It was sufficiently acquainted with Complainant’s mark to devise a number of close misspellings of it, and it copied exactly the content of two of the pages on Complainant’s web site in its own site. Again, in light of the open ended, non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b), registering a confusingly similar domain name with actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in an incorporated mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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).
Finally, as discussed above, Respondent is guilty of typosquatting. Given the non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b), typosquatting has, in and of itself, been held to be evidence of bad faith registration and use. Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Shuai Wei Xu / Xu Shuai Wei, FA 1784238 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding the respondent engaged in typosquatting—and thus registered and used the at-issue domain names in bad faith—where the names consisted of the complainant’s mark with small typographical errors introduced therein).
For the reasons first set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <coinbas.com>, <coinbasr.com>, <wwwcoinbase.com>, <conibase.com>, <coingase.com>, <cooinbase.com>, <ciinbase.com>, and <cojnbase.com> Domain Names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist
September 7, 2021
[i] Ms. Gutowksi’s declaration states and provides evidence that in July 2021 the <wwwcoinbase.com> Domain Name was also used in this same manner.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page