Coinbase, Inc. v. DNS Adm / CoinBasePro S. de R.L.
Claim Number: FA2205001995210
Complainant is Coinbase, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Stephanie H. Bald of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is DNS Adm / CoinBasePro S. de R.L. (“Respondent”), Honduras.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <coinbasepro.com> (“Domain Name”), registered with Tecnologia, Desarrollo Y Mercado S. de R.L. de C.V.
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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 5, 2022; the Forum received payment on May 5, 2022.
On May 13, 2022, Tecnologia, Desarrollo Y Mercado S. de R.L. de C.V. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <coinbasepro.com> domain name is registered with Tecnologia, Desarrollo Y Mercado S. de R.L. de C.V. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tecnologia, Desarrollo Y Mercado S. de R.L. de C.V. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tecnologia, Desarrollo Y Mercado S. de R.L. de C.V. 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 May 18, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Spanish and English language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 7, 2022 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@coinbasepro.com. Also on May 18, 2022, the Spanish and English language 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 June 15, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING
The language of the registration agreements for the Domain Name is Spanish. The Complaint is in English and Complainant requests that pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a) the language of the proceeding be English.
It is established practice to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties. Factors which previous panels have seen as particularly compelling are: WHOIS information which establishes Respondent in a country which would demonstrate familiarity with the English language, filing of a trademark registration with an entity which shows an understanding of the English language, and any evidence (or lack thereof) exhibiting Respondent’s understanding of the language requested by Complainant. See The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, D2009-0610 (WIPO July 1, 2009) (panel exercising discretion in deciding that the language of the proceedings advance in English, contrary to the Registration Agreement, based on evidence that respondent has command of the language). Further, the Panel may weigh the relative time and expense in enforcing the Spanish language agreement, which would result in prejudice toward either party. See Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006) (deciding that the proceeding should be in English, stating, “It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.”) and Zappos.com, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade, Case No. D2008-1191 (WIPO October 15, 2008) (holding that proceedings could be conducted in English even though the registration agreement was in Chinese where “the disputed domain resolves to a website [that] is exclusively in English, from which can be reasonably presumed that the Respondent has the ability to communicate in English in order to conduct his business over the website in English”)
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. The website to which the Domain Name has resolved (“Respondent’s Website”) is entirely in English. Furthermore, the Domain Name itself contains the English abbreviation “pro”. The Panel also notes the absence of any response by Respondent indicating a preference that the proceeding continue in Spanish. After considering the circumstances of the present case, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be continued in the English language.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Coinbase, Inc., operates an online cryptocurrency platform. Complainant asserts rights in the COINBASE mark based on registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,567,878, registered July 15, 2014). Respondent’s <coinbasepro.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s COINBASE mark, incorporating the mark in its entirety and merely adding the generic term “pro” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to form the domain name.
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <coinbasepro.com> domain name as it is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is neither an authorized user or licensee of the COINBASE 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 resolve to a website offering pay-per-click advertisements. Respondent may also use the Domain Name to pass itself off as Complainant to phish for visitors’ confidential information.
Respondent registered and uses the <coinbasepro.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attracts internet users for commercial gain to the Respondent’s Website, which contains numerous pay-per-click links for which the Respondent likely receives revenue. Next, Respondent unfairly disrupts Complainant’s business through its use and registration of the Domain Name. Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent must have registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the COINBASE mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the COINBASE mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COINBASE mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith.
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”).
Complainant has rights in the COINBASE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 4,567,878, registered July 15, 2014). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See 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.”).
The Panel finds that the <coinbasepro.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COINBASE mark because it merely adds the generic term “pro” to the wholly incorporated mark and also adds the “.com” gTLD. The addition of a generic term and a gTLD to a wholly incorporated mark is generally insufficient to create a distinction between a complainant’s mark and a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Forum May 16, 2007) (finding that the addition of the descriptive term “wine” to the complainant’s BLACKSTONE mark in the <blackstonewine.com> domain name was insufficient to distinguish the mark from the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); See also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the COINBASE mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).
The WHOIS lists “DNS Adm / CoinBasePro S. de R.L.” as registrant of record. However there is no affirmative evidence that the Respondent is actually commonly known under the CoinBasePro name as opposed to simply registering the Domain Name under a name for the purpose of asserting rights or legitimate interests. Even if a respondent appears from the WHOIS record to be known by the domain name, without additional affirmative evidence, it can be concluded that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Google Inc. v. S S / Google International, FA1506001625742 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (“Respondent did identify itself as ‘Google International’ in connection with its registration of the Disputed Domain Name, and this is reflected in the WHOIS information. However, Respondent has not provided affirmative evidence from which the Panel can conclude that Respondent was commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name before Respondent’s registration thereof.”); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. HP Supplies, FA 282387 (Forum July 22, 2004) (“The Panel finds, because of the prominence of the HP mark, that Respondent’s registration under the ‘HP Supplies’ name does not establish that Respondent is commonly known by the <hpsupplies.com> domain name.”). Given the lack of evidence that the Respondent is actually known under a name corresponding to the Domain Name, and Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Prior to the commencement of the proceeding the Domain Name resolved to a news website which appears to be used to obtain click-through revenue by containing advertising links to third-party websites. Use of a domain name to host pay-per-click links unrelated to any descriptive meaning of the domain name is not a use indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 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 where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business); see also Ferring B.V. v. Shanshan Huang / Melissa Domain Name Services, FA1505001620342 (Forum July 1, 2015) (“Placing unrelated third party links for the benefit of a respondent indicates a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services, and a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), respectively.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name, August 22, 2020, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s COINBASE mark. There is no obvious explanation, and none has been provided by Respondent, for a party to register a domain name that consists of the registered COINBASE mark and the word “pro” and redirect it to a pay-per-click website unrelated to any descriptive meaning of the Domain Name absent any awareness of Complainant and its COINBASE mark (and intention to capitalize on Complainant’s reputation in its COINBASE mark). In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith in order to resolve to a website that provides a series of pay-per-click links for which Respondent would be expected to receive revenue. Use of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect Internet users to a website containing advertisements and links to third party websites for commercial gain is indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 3M Company v. Nguyen Hoang Son / Bussiness and Marketing, FA1408001575815 (Forum Sept. 18, 2014) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host sponsored advertisements for Amazon, through which the respondent presumably profited, indicated that the respondent had used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Tumblr, Inc. v. Ailing Liu, FA1402001543807 (Forum Mar. 24, 2014) (“Bad faith use and registration exists under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website featuring links and advertisements unrelated to complainant’s business and respondent is likely collecting fees.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <coinbasepro.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: June 20, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page