DECISION

 

Paxful Holdings, Inc. v. Eric Petters

Claim Number: FA2406002101716

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Paxful Holdings, Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Jason Rawnsley, United States. Respondent is Eric Petters ("Respondent"), United Kingdom.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <paxful.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 11, 2024; Forum received payment on June 11, 2024.

 

On June 11, 2024, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to Forum that the <paxful.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 June 17, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 8, 2024 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@paxful.com. Also on June 17, 2024, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 10, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant operates a cryptocurrency marketplace with more than 12 million customers around the world. Complainant has used the PAXFUL mark in connection with its services since at least as early as 2015. Complainant owns a United States trademark for PAXFUL in standard character form.

 

Complainant registered the disputed domain name <paxful.com> in 2015. The domain name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service. In May 2024, Complainant discovered that an unauthorized request to change the registrant contact details for the domain name had been made in January 2023 by a former employee of Complainant who was later affiliated with one of Complainant's competitors. As a result, Complainant was stripped of ownership and control of the domain name, although the domain name continues to point to Complainant's primary website. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <paxful.com> is confusingly similar to its PAXFUL mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <paxful.com> corresponds to Complainant's registered PAXFUL trademark, adding only the ".com" top-level domain. The addition of a top-level domain is normally disregarded for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., Scientific Specialties Service, Inc. v. Marc Grebow / PrivacyProtect.org, FA 1896015 (Forum June 24, 2020) (finding <scispec.com> and <glassvials.com> identical or confusingly similar to SCI SPEC and GLASS VIALS); Macado's Inc. v. C. B. Henderson, FA 1180994 (Forum June 17, 2008) (finding <macados.com> identical to MACADO'S). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be identical to Complainant's registered mark.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name, apart from pointing or redirecting it to Complainant's website. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., HDR Global Trading Ltd. v. \uc18c\ubbfc \ucd5c, FA 1829914 (Forum Mar. 15, 2019) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Emerson Electric Co. v. Mariusz Kowalczyk, FA 1770167 (Forum Feb. 28, 2018) (same); Macado's Inc. v. C. B. Henderson, supra (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was registered or acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." Under paragraph 4(b)(iii), bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered or acquired the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." The circumstances set forth in paragraph 4(b) are not exhaustive; the totality of the circumstances must be considered in the assessment of bad faith. See Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. v. Hussain Ali Mirza, FA 1986334 (Forum Apr. 4, 2022).

 

Complainant's allegations, supported by evidence and unchallenged by Respondent, are that the disputed domain name was appropriated from Complainant by a former employee for the benefit of a competitor. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Four E, LLC v. Bin Qin / Submit11, FA 2070278 (Forum Dec. 5, 2023) (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Scientific Specialties Service, Inc. v. Marc Grebow / PrivacyProtect.org, supra (same); Vladislav Soklakov v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp, D2015-0794 (WIPO July 20, 2015) (same); Skyline Windows, LLC v. skylinewindows.com Private Registrant, FA 1525647 (Forum Dec. 10, 2013) (same); Anbex Inc. v. WEB-Comm Technologies Group c/o Domain Hostmaster, FA 780236 (Forum Sept. 19, 2006) (same). Cf. Macado's Inc. v. C. B. Henderson, supra (declining to find bad faith registration where complainant had authorized transfer of domain name into respondent's name). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <paxful.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin

Dated: July 11, 2024