A billionaire hedge fund manager, author, public speaker and philanthropist who was ranked in 2020 as the world’s 79th wealthiest person was targeted in a domain squatting case.
Raymond Dalio 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. He often goes by “Ray Dalio” and in this UDRP the domain RayDali.com is involved.
The missing “o” in the end created an interesting reference to another famous person, Salvador Dali but this isn’t about art. The domain resolves to a lander that force-launches WhatsApp with a phone number and the note “I’m interested in joining Tom Lee’s investment team.”
The Forum panelist concluded that this is a case of typosquatting along with the use of bogus WHOIS information and ordered the domain RayDali.com to be transferred to the Complainant.
Copyright © 2024 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.Raymond Dalio v. CHUNMIN TAN / top e-commerce Limited
Claim Number: FA2411002126223
PARTIES
Complainant is Raymond Dalio (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is CHUNMIN TAN / top e-commerce Limited (“Respondent”), Malaysia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is raydali.com, registered with Dominet (HK) Limited.
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 November 21, 2024; Forum received payment on November 21, 2024.
On November 21, 2024, Dominet (HK) Limited confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the raydali.com domain name is registered with Dominet (HK) Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dominet (HK) Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dominet (HK) Limited 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 November 22, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 12, 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@raydali.com. Also on November 22, 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 December 13, 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 consists of a misspelling of the mark (the letter “o” is omitted), merely the adding generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. 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 Whatsapp invitation page to join “David Portnoy’s Investment group” and purports to offer financial services, namely investment services that are identical or closely related to services provided by Complainant. However, the financial services offered via Respondent’s website are fake: David Portnoy is also an American businessman and philanthropist; Mr. Portnoy would have no reason to use a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous marks to refer consumers to his Whatsapp account and would be unlikely to offer investment tips via Whatapp in any event. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving website purports to offer services that complete with those of Complainant, however the offer is fake. Respondent engaged in typosquatting. Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its mark. 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 purports to offer financial services that compete with those of Complainant. 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 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 consists of a misspelling of Complainant’s RAY DALIO mark (the letter “o” is omitted), merely adding the generic top-level domain name (“gTLD”) “.com”. Including a trademark, even if misspelled, in a domain name does not distinguish the domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“The [morganstonley.com and morganstainley.com] Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, as they fully incorporate the MORGAN STANLEY mark, varying it only by subtle misspellings, omitting a space between the words, and adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) ‘.com.'”), Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar 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, FA1506001626022 (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 “CHUNMIN TAN / top e-commerce Limited”. Thus the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving website purports to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. Previous Panels have found that use of a disputed domain name to offer goods or services in competition with those of a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Dan Stanley Saturne, FA 1785085 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use” where “Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name to offer for sale competing services.”). 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 under 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 purports to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. Panels have held that registration and use of a disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic to a competing website offering the same or similar goods or services demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA 1761403 (Forum December 29, 2017) (Finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users from Complainant’s website to Respondent’s website where it offered competing printer products); see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA 1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, the WHOIS information is:
Organization: top e-commerce Limited
Contact person: CHUNMIN TAN
Province: sarakaw
City: kuching
Address: kuching
Country: MY
Postal code: 87000
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.
From publicly available databases, the Panel has determined that “Kuching” is not a valid address in “Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia”, and that “87000” is not a valid postal code for “Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia”.
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, FA1008001339545 (Forum Sept., 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 (Forum 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.
Finally, by merely omitting the letter “o” in Complainant’s mark, Respondent engages in typosquatting. A finding of typosquatting can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Adorama, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA1503001610020 (Forum May 1, 2015) (“Respondent has also engaged in typosquatting, which is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondents who capitalize on common typing errors engage in bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). As such, the Panel finds bad faith typosquatting under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
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 raydali.com domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: December 13, 2024
