Tiger Global Management, LLC v. SmartMaket SmartMaket123
Claim Number: FA2306002048422
Complainant is Tiger Global Management, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Scott Kareff of Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is SmartMaket SmartMaket123 (“Respondent”), TR.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <tigerglobalnetword.me>, registered with Porkbun LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 9, 2023; Forum received payment on June 12, 2023.
On June 9, 2023, Porkbun LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <tigerglobalnetword.me> domain name is registered with Porkbun LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Porkbun LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Porkbun LLC 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 June 13, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 3, 2023 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@tigerglobalnetword.me. Also on June 13, 2023, 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 July 11, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <tigerglobalnetword.me> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIGER GLOBAL mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <tigerglobalnetword.me> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <tigerglobalnetword.me> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant offers investment services and holds a registration for the TIGER GLOBAL mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,919,597, registered February 15, 2011).
Respondent registered the <tigerglobalnetword.me> domain name on May 16, 2023, and uses it to conduct a phishing scheme.
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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark based on registration with the USPTO. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”)
Respondent’s <tigerglobalnetword.me> domain name contains Complainant’s TIGER GLOBAL mark in its entirety, and simply adds “netword” and the “.me” gTLD. The addition of a generic word and a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (Finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).) Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <tigerglobalnetword.me> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIGER GLOBAL mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also 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”).
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <tigerglobalnetword.me> domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “SmartMaket SmartMaket123.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights 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).
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the <tigerglobalnetword.me> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent is using it to phish for payments from users seeking Complainant. Passing off as a complainant to phish for Internet users’ personal information or money is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (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.”) Complainant provides screenshots showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name for a phishing scheme. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the <tigerglobalnetword.me> domain name in bad faith to fraudulently obtain private personal information and/or to induce visitors to send money based on the false pretense that Respondent is Complainant or an affiliate of Complainant. The Panel notes that Respondent has created a “copycat” website associated with the disputed domain name. Using the disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant and conduct a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), ¶ 4(b)(iv), and ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum December 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 Google Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1506001622862 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent’s apparent use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a ‘phishing’ scheme further established its bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Accordingly, the Panel find that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name for its commercial gain, disrupting Complainant’s business, constituting bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), ¶ 4(b)(iv), and ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered the <tigerglobalnetword.me> domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TIGER GLOBAL mark. To support this assertion, Complainant points to the fact that Respondent impersonates Complainant and solicits information and money from Complainant’s customers. The Panel agrees and finds that this is further evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum January 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”).
The Panel finds that 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 <tigerglobalnetword.me> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: July 12, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page