If you consider yourself a “business man” then stay away from other businesses’ trademarks. The hilarious response filed by the Respondent in the UDRP against Bitmex.group emphasizes the ballsy attitude of cybersquatters.
BitMEX is a crypto exchange platform and a registered trademark of HDR Global Trading Limited. They operate from the domain name Bitmex.com.
While the Chinese respondent didn’t file a formal response, they sent in a statement: “they are a businessman and under a duty to make a profit from the domain name.”
Their “duty” was trying to extract $10,000 dollars for the domain, a fact that didn’t sit well with the Forum (NAF) panelist, who ordered Bitmex.group to be transferred to the Complainant.
As a side note, it seems that Afternic, where the domain was listed, isn’t doing a great job policing trademark violations; several other “bitmex” domains are listed for sale.
Copyright © 2024 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.HDR Global Trading Limited v. Wang Huai De
Claim Number: FA2203001987272
PARTIES
Complainant is HDR Global Trading Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Mary D. Hallerman of SNELL & WILMER L.L.P, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Wang Huai De (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is , registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn).
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.
Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 7, 2022; the Forum received payment on March 7, 2022. The Complaint was received in both Chinese and English.
On March 9, 2022, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) 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 March 14, 2022, the Forum served the Chinese language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 4, 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@bitmex.group. Also on March 14, 2022, the Chinese and English language 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 timely, formal response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 11, 2022, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that the 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, the Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any timely, formal response from Respondent.
The Panel finds in the circumstances and under Rule 11 that the proceedings may continue in the English language.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant asserts trademark rights in BITMEX. Complainant holds national and international registrations for that trademark. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to its trademark.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. The informal submissions are considered later.
FINDINGS
The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:
1. Complainant uses the trademark BITMEX in connection with its business of operating a cryptocurrency-based trading platform;
2. Complainant owns, inter alia, European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) Reg. No. 16,462,327, registered August 11, 2017, for the trademark, BITMEX;
3. the disputed domain name was registered on November 7, 2021, and resolves to a site where the name is offered for sale; and
4. there is no relationship between the parties and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its trademark or to register any domain name incorporating the trademark.
DISCUSSION
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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)). Complainant therefore has rights as it provides proof of its registration of the trademark BITMEX with the EUIPO, a pan-national trademark authority.
For the purposes of comparison of the disputed domain name with the trademark the gTLD, “.group”, can be disregarded (see, for example, Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Forum Dec. 31, 2007)). The disputed domain name is thus legally identical to the trademark (see, for example, Bittrex, Inc. v. Privacy protection service – whoisproxy.ru, FA 1759828 (Forum Jan. 12, 2018) and the Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000‑0624).
The domain name registrant is “Wang Huai De”. There is no suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name, or that Respondent has any trademark rights. Complainant provides evidence that the disputed domain name is used only to resolve to a site where it is advertised for sale. The absence of any actual use and the sale offer do not establish use of the domain name in respect of a bona fide offering of goods or services or show a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks a right or interest in the disputed domain name (see, for example, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Diego Ossa, FA1501001602016 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015); Nutri/System IPHC, Inc. v. Usama Ayub, FA1725806 (Forum June 5, 2017)).
The onus shifts to Respondent. Albeit that there was no timely Response, the Forum received an informal submission stating that Respondent was a businessman and under a duty to make a profit from the domain name. That statement does not sit with the Policy in any meaningful way and the Panel can pay it no weight in terms of the matters under consideration. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith.
Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established.
The four specified circumstances are:
‘(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name 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 the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.’
Complainant argues for the application of paragraph 4(b)(i) above, providing evidence that the sale price for the domain name is USD 20,000. The Panel finds registration and use in bad faith under that paragraph. The Panel has already found the disputed domain name to be identical to the trademark. There is no apparent reason for Respondent to register the name in good faith since the trademark appears to only refer to Complainant’s business and has no other shown meaning. In the absence of another explanation, the Panel finds that Respondent targeted Complainant’s trademark and business with the primary intention of registering a domain name which it could sell to Complainant for an amount in excess of the registration costs (see, for example, Retail Royalty Company and AE Direct Co LLC v. Whois Foundation / DOMAIN MAY BE FOR SALE, CHECK AFTERNIC.COM Domain Admin, FA 1821246 (Forum Jan. 13, 2019) (“Respondent lists the disputed domain name for sale for $5,759, which is a price well in excess of out of pocket costs. Such an offering can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the third and final element of the Policy is satisfied.
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 domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist
Dated: April 12, 2022
