DECISION

 

Raymond Dalio v. charles one

Claim Number: FA2406002101828

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Raymond Dalio ("Complainant"), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is charles one ("Respondent"), Argentina.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <raydalio.life>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On June 12, 2024, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <raydalio.life> 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 12, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 2, 2024 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@raydalio.life. Also on June 12, 2024, 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 3, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that he is a billionaire hedge fund manager, author, public speaker and philanthropist who was ranked in 2020 as the world's 79th wealthiest person. He has been called the "Steve Jobs of Investing" by aiCIO Magazine and Wired Magazine and named one of the 100 Most Influential People by TIME Magazine. Complainant founded the world-renowned investment management firm Bridgewater Associates, LP ("Bridgewater") in 1975. Complainant's name is inextricably linked with Bridgewater and its services. Complainant currently serves as a mentor to the CIOs and Investment Committee, a member of the Operating Board, and as a senior investor of Bridgewater. Today, Bridgewater manages billions of dollars' worth of investments for a wide variety of clients worldwide, making it the largest hedge fund in the world by dollar investment and the fifth most important private company in the U.S. according to Fortune Magazine. Complainant is the author of The New York Times #1 Bestseller Principles, which outlines his work and life principles, the foundation of Bridgewater's distinctive culture and the cornerstone of his and Bridgewater's success. Complainant also is the author of the successful books Principles for Navigating Big Debt Crises and Principles for Success, the latter of which also has been turned into a video series, narrated by Complainant. He also is the author of "How the Economic Machine Works," available in written and video formats, the latter narrated by him. He also launched a popular app entitled "Principles in Action by Ray Dalio." Complainant also is a world-renowned philanthropist. Thousands of articles and news stories have been written or broadcast about Complainant and his investment, life and work management and philanthropic services, including without limitation in major widely-distributed publications such as CNBC, Bloomberg, Business Insider, The New York Times, MarketWatch, The Los Angeles Times, Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, Economic Times, CNN, Financial Times and The Chicago Tribune. Complainant asserts common law trademark rights in the mark RAY DALIO. He also asserts rights in the mark through its registration in, respectively, China in 2022 and the United States in 2024 (filing date September 20, 2022).

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to his RAY DALIO mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding generic top level domain ("gTLD") ".life". Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use his mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that impersonates Complainant and purports to offer fake financial services under his name. Specifically, the site uses Complainant's name and biographical information, claiming that he is a "respectable figure on Wall Street", and purports to offer crypto investment services. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the resolving website. Respondent is impersonating Complainant. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark RAY DALIO and uses it as an author and public speaker.

 

Complainant's rights in his mark precede the registration of the disputed domain name.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2024.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use his mark.

 

The disputed domain name resolves to a website that impersonates Complainant and purports to offer fake financial services under his name. The WHOIS information is false.

 

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 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant asserts common law rights in his RAY DALIO mark. Common law rights are sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require a trademark registration if a complainant can establish common law rights in its mark). Common law rights may be established through evidence of secondary meaning in the mark such as longstanding use, evidence of an identical domain name, media recognition, and promotional material and advertising. See Marquette Golf Club v. Al Perkins, FA 1738263 (Forum July 27, 2017) (finding that Complainant had established its common law rights in the MARQUETTE GOLF CLUB mark with evidence of secondary meaning, including "longstanding use; evidence of holding an identical domain name; media recognition; and promotional material/advertising"). Here, Complainant presents ample evidence of longstanding use, media recognition, and promotional material/advertising that are evidence of secondary meaning. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant established common law rights in his RAY DALIO mark, with rights predating the first registration of the disputed domain name. See Raymond Dalio v. Ivan Rimar, FA 1998416 (Forum July 5, 2022) (finding "ample support of Complainant's claim to common law rights in RAY DALIO as a trademark given Complainant's reputation, at least in the United States, and the use of his personal name in a trademark sense in commerce); see also Raymond Dalio & Dalio Foundation, Inc. v. Zhang Jia, FA 1900031 (Forum July 24, 2020) ("Complainant has used the RAY DALIO Mark and DALIO FOUNDATION Mark in connection with numerous business and philanthropic endeavors, and in connection with Complainant's own book, and in extensive media coverage. As a result, the Panel concludes that Complainant holds common law rights in the RAY DALIO Mark and DALIO FOUNDATION Mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).").

 

Further, Complainant has registered trademark rights in the RAY DALIO mark, with rights dating back to 2022 through the mark's registration in China and in the United States: the relevant date for the mark is the filing date, see Lenovo (Beijing) Limited Corporation China v. jeonggon seo, FA 1591638 (Forum Jan. 16, 2015) (finding Complainant has rights in the LENOVO mark dating back to the February 20, 2003 filing date with the USPTO as the trademark application was ultimately successful); see also Hershey Co. v. Reaves, FA 967818 (Forum June 8, 2007) (finding that the complainant's rights in the KISSES trademark through registration of the mark with the USPTO "date back to the filing date of the trademark application and predate [the] respondent's registration").

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's RAY DALIO mark in its entirety and merely adds the ".life" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). This does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs"); see also Abbott Labs v. Whois Svc., FA 1254682 (Forum May 14, 2009) ("the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a registered mark"); see also Twitter, Inc. v. Jie, FA 1919786 (Forum Dec. 9, 2020) ("The Panel considers the disputed domain name [<twitter.luxe>] to be identical to Complainant's registered [TWITTER] trademark."). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use his mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "charles one". Thus the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant presents evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that impersonates Complainant and purports to offer fake financial services under his name. Specifically, the site uses Complainant's name and biographical information, claiming that he is a "respectable figure on Wall Street", and purports to offer crypto investment services. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Edible Communities v. Thoreau,  FA 1158554 (Forum Apr. 16, 2008) ("[R]espondent's use of the disputed domain name [<theedibleaustin.com>] to pass itself off as [c]omplainant shows that [r]espondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(i) as well as Policy ¶4(c)(iii)."); see also Digg v. Digg , FA 1220833 (Forum Oct. 9, 2008) (finding no legitimate interest in respondent's use of the domain name <digg-inc.com> because "[r]espondent is attempting to pass itself off as [c]omplainant" and such "actions do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii)."). Thus 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.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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 attempts to impersonate Complainant. This can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See American International Group, Inc. v. Walter Busby d/b/a AIG Mergers and Acquisitions, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (the resolving website gave every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant's business); see also Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Russell Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) (Respondent is implying an affiliation with Complainant, and consumers seeking Complainant's products and services may become confused when encountering Respondent's website). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Further, the WHOIS information is:

Registrant/Admin/Tech/Billing Name: charles one

Registrant/Admin/Tech/Billing Street: nere

Registrant/Admin/Tech/Billing City: argentina

Registrant/Admin/Tech/Billing State/Province: argentina

Registrant/Admin/Tech/Billing Postal Code: 1754

Registrant/Admin/Tech/Billing Country: Argentina

 

According to paragraph 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0"), a Panel may conduct limited factual research regarding disputed domain names:

 

Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision.

 

This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name, consulting historical resources such as the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) in order to obtain an indication of how a domain name may have been used in the relevant past, reviewing dictionaries or encyclopedias (e.g., Wikipedia), or accessing trademark registration databases.

 

The address listed in the WHOIS is manifestly not a valid address, and, from publicly available databases, the Panel has found that the postal code listed in the WHOIS is not a valid postal code for Argentina.

 

Thus the Panel finds that that WHOIS information is false. This can indicate bad faith registration and use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. John Doe, FA 1339545 (Forum Sept. 29, 2010 ) ("The Panel also takes into account that the entity that Responded to the Complaint would not be the registrant of the disputed domain names for the instant proceedings. Therefore, that circumstance is also taken by the Panel as indication of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) by providing false or misleading WHOIS information to the registrar."); see also Video Direct Distribs. Inc. v. Video Direct, Inc., FA 94724 (1339545 June 5, 2000) (finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by providing incorrect information to the registrar regarding the owner of the registered name). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use on this ground also.

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

 

 

Richard, Hill Panelist

Dated: July 3, 2024