SmartContract Chainlink, Ltd. v. Jetpack Jackpot
Claim Number: FA2301002027375
Complainant is SmartContract Chainlink, Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by J. Damon Ashcraft of SNELL & WILMER L.L.P, Arizona, USA. Respondent is Jetpack Jackpot (“Respondent”), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <chainlinkblog.online>, 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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 12, 2023; Forum received payment on January 12, 2023.
On January 12, 2023, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <chainlinkblog.online> 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 January 13, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 2, 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@chainlinkblog.online. Also on January 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 February 8, 2023, 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that owns and operates an innovative and highly successful blockchain supported network, CHAINLINK, used by thousands of consumers around the world. Complainant has been developing the CHAINLINK network since June 1, 2017. CHAINLINK is an open-source software and the industry standard oracle network. It uses blockchain and smart contract technology for connecting to the world’s data. Complainant has become one of the most recognizable names in the blockchain industry, with its website at <chain.link> attracting tens of millions of page views per month. Complainant asserts rights in the CHAINLINK mark based upon its registration in the United States in 2019. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its CHAINLINK mark because it contains the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic or descriptive term “blog” and the top-level domain (“TLD”) “.online”.
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s CHAINLINK mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name is not being used.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent capitalizes on the goodwill associated with Complainant’s mark by attempting to confuse consumers as to the source of the disputed domain name. Respondent directs internet users to an inactive webpage. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CHAINLINK mark. Respondent failed to respond to Complainant’s cease-and-desist letters.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark CHAINLINK and uses it to provide blockchain services.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to at least 2019.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2022.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name is not being used. The WHOIS information is false.
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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s CHAINLINK mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic or descriptive term “blog” and the top-level domain (“TLD”) “.online”. The addition of a generic or descriptive term and gTLD to a mark does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“Respondent merely adds the term ‘supports’ and a ‘.org’ gTLD to the DELL mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also 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.”). Therefore the Panel finds that the <chainlinkblog.online> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHAINLINK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s CHAINLINK mark and 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 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)). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Jetpack Jackpot”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The disputed domain name is not being used. Failure to make active use of a disputed domain name is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Nutri/System IPHC, Inc. v. Usama Ayub, FA1725806 (Forum June 5, 2017) (holding that “Respondent does not use the <nutrisystemturbo.us> domain for a bona fide offering of goods or services because the domain name resolves to a website that currently is designated as ‘under construction.’”); see also Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“both Domain Names resolve to a web site that shows the words, ‘Not Found, The requested URL / was not found on this server.’ Inactive holding of a domain name does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make 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). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.
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.
There do not appear to be MX records for the disputed domain name, therefore it does not appear to be used for email at present.
According to paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): “From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.”
Complainant states: “Under the circumstances of this case, ‘it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate[.]’ Telstra Corp. Ltd. V. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) (finding bad faith use).”
The citation is appropriate, see also Morgan Stanley v. TONY / shentony, FA 1637186 (Forum Oct. 10, 2015) (“Respondent registered the disputed domain name [MORGANSTANLEY.ONLINE] in bad faith because . . . it is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy”); see also Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. European Travel Network, D2000-0641 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000) (where selection of disputed domain name is so obviously connected to complainant’s well-known trademark, use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton Int’l IP, LLC, Westin Hotel Mgmt., L.P. v. Jingjing Tang, D2014-1040 (WIPO Aug. 19, 2014) (“The Panel finds that the [WESTIN] Marks are not such that could legitimately be adopted by traders other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith”).
Here, Complainant’s mark is not distinctive: “chainlink” can refer to a type of fence[i] and “blog” can refer to legitimate information and/or criticism on anything related to the term “chainlink”, whether fences or Complainant’s products and services. Further, Complainant’s mark is not well known: according to Complainant its products and services are (emphasis added): “used by thousands of consumers around the world.”
Thus the Panel find that Complainant has failed to meet its burden of proof of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) on the grounds that the disputed domain name is not being used. See Tristar Products, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Telebrands, Corp., FA 1597388 (Forum Feb. 16, 2015) (“Complainant makes conclusory allegations of bad faith but has adduced no specific evidence that warrants a holding that Respondent proceeded in bad faith at the time it registered the disputed domain name. Mere assertions of bad faith, even when made on multiple grounds, do not prove bad faith.”); see also Chris Pearson v. Domain Admin / Automattic, Inc., FA 1613723 (Forum July 3, 2015) (finding that the complainant could not establish the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because it failed to present evidence that would support such a holding).
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.
The WHOIS information provided by Respondent is:
|
Name |
Jetpack Jackpot |
|
Street |
Book drive |
|
City |
Lagos |
|
Province |
Lagos |
|
Postal Code |
20012 |
|
Country |
Nigeria |
|
Phone |
+13553636 |
|
|
jetpackjackpot@gmail.com |
As noted above, the Panel may conduct limited factual research. Having done so, the Panel finds that the phone number listed in the WHOIS is not a valid Nigerian phone number: in fact, it does not appear to be a valid phone number; the postal code listed in the WHOIS does not appear to be a valid postal code for Lagos, Nigeria; the street listed in the WHOIS does not appear to be a valid street address for Lagos, Nigeria.
Thus the Panel finds that the WHOIS information is false, and this can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CNU ONLINE Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1504001614972 (Forum May 29, 2015) (“As the Panel sees that Respondent has provided false or misleading WHOIS information, the Panel finds bad faith in Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd v. Global Mgr, FA 1702001716963 (Forum Mar. 30, 2017) (“Complainant contends that Respondent provided false contact information while registering the disputed domain. Registering a confusingly similar domain name using false contact information can evince bad faith registration.”); see also j2 Global Canada, Inc. and Landslide Technologies, Inc. v. Vijay S Kumar/Strategic Outsourcing Services Pvt Ltd, FA 1411001647718 (Forum Jan. 4, 2016) (“False or misleading contact information indicates bad faith registration and use.”); see also Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Phillip Thomas/Chevron Pacific, FA 1504001615524 (Forum May 29, 2015) (“Complainant’s use of false registration data and its unexplained redirection of the disputed domain name to Complainant’s own website are further indications of such bad faith.”); see also McDonald’s Corp. v. Holy See, FA 0304000155458 (Forum June 27, 2003) (“The Panel finds that Respondent provided false contact information in the registration certificates and that such actions, even though not specifically enumerated in the Policy, may form the basis for a finding of bad faith registration and use.”); see also Mars, Incorporated v. RaveClub Berlin, FA 0106000097361 (Forum July 16, 2001) (providing false registration and contact information for infringing domain names evidenced Respondent’s bad faith). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under 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 <chainlinkblog.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: February 9, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page