BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL LLC v. Fred Carey
Claim Number: FA2111001973440
Complainant is BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Jonathan Winter of St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC, Connecticut, USA. Respondent is Fred Carey (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <blockchaincapital.online>, 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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 16, 2021; the Forum received payment on November 16, 2021.
On November 16, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <blockchaincapital.online> 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 November 17, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 7, 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@blockchaincapital.online. Also on November 17, 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 December 10, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it is engaged in the business of financial investment services, notably dealing with cryptocurrency. Complainant is a leading venture capital and investment firm and is the oldest venture capital firm dedicated to emerging cryptography and cryptocurrency technologies and has been operating under the name “BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL” since 2013. Complainant has rights in the BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL mark based upon its registration in the United States in 2019.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL mark, as it simply omits the space between the words “BLOCKCHAIN” and “CAPITAL” and adds the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.online”.
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL mark 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 noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website purports to offers services that compete with those of Complainant; such offers may however be fraudulent: the address displayed on the resolving website does not exist.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain in bad faith. The disputed domain name includes Complainant’s trademark and strongly implies a connection therewith. Respondent appears to be attempting to imply affiliation with Complainant’s mark to pursue financial gain by offering competing services. Respondent had constructive or actual notice of Complainant’s mark when it registered the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information is false: the registrant of the disputed domain name is listed as “Fred Carey, 12 New Drive Way, Houston, Texas 77077, telephone 213 640 7976”; a search of the public records does not reveal any person by the name of Fred Carey in Houston; the address of “12 new Drive Way, Houston, Texas 77077” does not exist; the telephone number 213 640 7976 is an anonymous Google subscriber number.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the mark BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL dating back to 2019 and uses it to provide financial investment services, notably dealing with cryptocurrency.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2021.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
Respondent is using the disputed domain names to resolve to a web site that purports to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. The WHOIS information is false.
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 disputed domain name wholly incorporates Complainant’s BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL mark, simply omitting the space between the words “BLOCKCHAIN” and “CAPITAL”, and adding a gTLD. The addition of a gTLD and elimination of spacing are both considered irrelevant when distinguishing between a mark and a domain name. See MAN SOCKS ITALIA S.R.L. v. Justin O'Dell / Emerge Credit Education, FA2109001967147 (Forum Nov. 1, 2021) (“Minor changes such as removal or spaces and addition of a gTLD are insufficient to negate confusing similarity between a domain name and the mark it incorporates under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Vince Andrich v. AnonymousSpeech AnonymousSpeech, FA 1406333 (Forum Oct. 26, 2011) (finding confusing similarity per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as “Respondent’s <vinceandrich.net> domain name is composed of Complainant’s mark, without the space between words, combined with the gTLD “.net.” These changes do not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s VINCE ANDRICH mark.”). Thus, the Panel finds that the <blockchaincapital.online> domain name is identical to Complainant’s BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Fred Carey”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving website purports to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. josh greenly / All Access Tickets, FA1507001629217 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (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 as required under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to host a web page that featured links to services that competed with those of the complainant); see also See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website offers competing services. This constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Asbury Auto Group Inc. v. Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs, FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use); see also 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).”). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, Complainant provides evidence that the WHOIS contact information is false. Since Respondent does not rebut this allegation, the Panel may draw such inferences as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name using false WHOIS contact information. This can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CNU ONLINE Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1504001614972 (Forum May 29, 2015) (“As the Panel sees that Respondent has provided false or misleading WHOIS information, the Panel finds bad faith in Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd v. Global Mgr, FA 1702001716963 (Forum Mar. 30, 2017) (“Complainant contends that Respondent provided false contact information while registering the disputed domain. Registering a confusingly similar domain name using false contact information can evince bad faith registration.”); see also j2 Global Canada, Inc. and Landslide Technologies, Inc. v. Vijay S Kumar/Strategic Outsourcing Services Pvt Ltd, FA 1411001647718 (Forum Jan. 4, 2016) (“False or misleading contact information indicates bad faith registration and use.”); see also Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Phillip Thomas/Chevron Pacific, FA 1504001615524 (Forum May 29, 2015) (“Complainant’s use of false registration data and its unexplained redirection of the disputed domain name to Complainant’s own website are further indications of such bad faith.”); see also McDonald’s Corp. v. Holy See, FA 0304000155458 (Forum June 27, 2003) (“The Panel finds that Respondent provided false contact information in the registration certificates and that such actions, even though not specifically enumerated in the Policy, may form the basis for a finding of bad faith registration and use.”); see also Mars, Incorporated v. RaveClub Berlin, FA 0106000097361 (Forum July 16, 2001) (providing false registration and contact information for infringing domain names evidenced Respondent’s bad faith). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under 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 <blockchaincapital.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: December 10, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page