Tiger Global Management, LLC v. vlad cech
Claim Number: FA2209002013700
Complainant is Tiger Global Management, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Scott Kareff of Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is vlad cech (“Respondent”), US.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <tigerglobalmgt.com>, 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 Forum electronically on September 27, 2022; Forum received payment on October 4, 2022.
On September 27, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <tigerglobalmgt.com> 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 October 7, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 27, 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@tigerglobalmgt.com. Also on October 7, 2022, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 4, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 offers hedge fund investment services. Complainant has rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <tigerglobalmgt.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIGER GLOBAL mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety while adding the letters “mgt” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <tigerglobalmgt.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its TIGER GLOBAL mark in the domain name. Respondent does not use the at-issue domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead passes itself off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme.
Respondent registered and uses the <tigerglobalmgt.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business while passing off as Complainant and creating confusion among users for commercial gain. Respondent also phishes for internet users’ personal information. Additionally, Respondent hides its identity by using a privacy service. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name with actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the TIGER GLOBAL trademark.
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 TIGER GLOBAL trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of phishing.
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’s USPTO trademark registration for TIGER GLOBAL as well as any other nation registration for such mark is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4 (a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).”).
The at-issue domain name contains Complainant’s TIGER GLOBAL mark less its inconsequential space, followed by the letters or term “mgt” and with all followed by the “.com” top-level. The differences between <tigerglobalmgt.com> and Complainant’s TIGER GLOBAL trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) that Respondent’s <tigerglobalmgt.com>domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIGER GLOBAL trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also, Countrywide Fin. Corp. v. Johnson & Sons Sys., FA 1073019 (Forum Oct. 24, 2007) (holding that the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” was irrelevant).
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 the 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. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name ultimately identifies the domain name’s registrant as “vlad cech” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by either the <tigerglobalmgt.com> domain name or by TIGER GLOBAL. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <tigerglobalmgt.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names because the WHOIS information listed “Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a Electromatic Equip't” as the registrant and there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names in dispute).
Respondent uses the TIGER GLOBAL domain name to impersonate Complainant and further a phishing scheme to fraudulently obtain private personal information and/or to induce internet contacts to send money based on the false pretense that Respondent is Complainant or an affiliate of Complainant. Respondent’s use of the <tigerglobalmgt.com> domain name in this manner fails to show either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present which permit the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
As mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses <opploanspro.com> to pass itself off as Complainant and address a website likely furthering a phishing scheme. Respondent’s phishing campaign uses the at-issue domain name to falsely impersonate a founding officer of Complainant’s business. While disguised as Complainant’s officer, Respondent may then dupe individuals into believing that Respondent is operating a legitimate business and thereby further defraud Complainant in any of a number of ways. Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name is disruptive to Complainant’s business and shows Respondent’s attempt to capitalize on the confusion Respondent created between the at-issue domain name and Complainant’s trademark. Respondent’s use of the domain name thus shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the at-issue domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant’s website, constituted bad faith 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.”); see also DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“the Panel finds the respondent is appropriating the complainant’s mark in a confusingly similar domain name for commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).”).
The fact that Respondent appears to be engaging in phishing scheme is in itself further evidence suggesting Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain name. See Emdeon Business Services, LLC v. HR Emdeon Careers, FA1507001629459 (Forum Aug. 14, 2015) (finding that the respondent had engaged in an email phishing scheme indicating bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), where respondent was coordinating the disputed domain name to send emails to Internet users and advising them that they had been selected for a job interview with the complainant and was persuading the users to disclose personal information in the process).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark when it registered <tigerglobalmgt.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from Respondent’s use of Complainant’s entire unique trademark in the at-issue <tigerglobalmgt.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant as discussed elsewhere herein. Respondent’s registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in such domain name further shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Norgren GmbH v. Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft, FA1501001599884 (Forum Feb. 25, 2014) (holding that the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant and its rights in the mark, thus demonstrating bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to purposely host links related to the complainant’s field of operation); see also, 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 <tigerglobalmgt.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: November 5, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page