Westmore · UDRP DecisionSuperbitpanda.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <superbitpanda.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITPANDA mark because it incorporated the mark in full with the addition of “super.” Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because the domain was used for a purported cryptocurrency investment platform that copied Complainant’s identifying information and impersonated or falsely suggested an affiliation with Complainant. The Panel found registration and use in bad faith based on Respondent’s actual knowledge, the fraudulent scheme for financial gain, and inaccurate or incomplete registration contact details.
The timeline behind superbitpanda.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
This decision illustrates a strong impersonation and fraudulent-investment fact pattern. The decisive evidence went beyond similarity in the domain name: the website copied detailed corporate identifiers and personnel information while operating in Complainant’s field and soliciting financial deposits. Those facts supported both the absence of legitimate interests and the finding of intentional bad-faith conduct.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Bitpanda GmbH v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Ngene Goodness Case No. D2021-2109 1. The Parties Complainant is Bitpanda GmbH, Austria, represented by Plasseraud IP, France. Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Ngene Goodness, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <superbitpanda.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 2, 2021. On July 2, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 2, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on July 8, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 9, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 14, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 4, 2021. Respondent sent two informal emails. The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on August 18, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background Complainant is an Austrian fintech company established on September 12, 2014. For seven years, Complainant has run an online platform enabling its users to buy and sell digital assets, such as Bitcoin or Ethereum, and commodities such as gold. Complainant’s platform was initially branded under the mark COINIMAL, and rebranded in June 2016 to the mark BITPANDA. Complainant has over 400 employees and more than 2.5 million clients. Complainant operates its platform through the domain name <bitpanda.com>, which is used by investors from many countries in Europe and the Middle East. Complainant’s business under the BITPANDA mark has reached a reported valuation of USD1.2 billion. Complainant expects to pass USD 100 million in revenue in the first few months of 2021. Complainant is the owner of several registrations for its BITPANDA mark for use in connection with online marketplace services and financial services, such as money exchanges and transfers, including the following: BITPANDA European Union registration No. 15500006, registeredOctober 14, 2016; BITPANDA UK registration No. UK00915560006, registered October 14, 2016, BITPANDA + device European Union registration No. 015560022, registered October 14, 2016; BITPANDA European Union registration No. 17496894, registered March 12, 2018; BITPANDA International registration No. 1383484 registered November 21, 2017, covering Norway, Israel, USA, Singapore, Switzerland, South Korea, Turkey, Mexico, China, Japan, India, and New Zealand. Complainant’s BITPANDA platform has received many industry and media awards since 2016, including the Alpbach StartUp Award, Best FinTech Startup, Futurezone award as blockchain project of the year (attended by Austria’s minister of economy), Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year, FinTech Austria Award, Global CFO Excellence Award – Finance leader of the year. According to the Alexa.com website, Complainant’s <bitpanda.com> is ranked 4.938th among the most visited websites of the world. Many press articles published in many different countries, including France, the UK, Germany, Turkey, Spain, and several African countries, have reported on Complainant’s BITPANDA platform. Complainant also promotes its BITPANDA platform through advertisements, including street billboards in big cities such as London. The disputed domain name was registered on May 27, 2021. The disputed domain name resolved to a website dedicated to investing and trading online in the field of cryptocurrencies. Respondent’s website includes on the homepage a picture showing the top managers and co-founders of Complainant, contains the history of Complainant and references the location of Complainant’s headquarters in Vienna, Austria. It reproduces on the homepage Complainant’s company registration number, which is the Legal Entity Identifier of Complainant referenced in financial transactions. It is now inactive. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to or confusingly similar with Complainant’s BITPANDA trademark, that Respondent has no 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. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit any factual or legal contentions. On July 15, 2021, Respondent sent an email to the Center stating: “Please I want to use this ultimatum to ask all panels and people in charge to let me know what I can do to resolve this issue or better still bring up a platform where I can negotiate with bitpanda ceo concerning the pending issues. This issues is a simple matter which can be settled without any stress and I wish to comply with an information that will go according to my request. Please get back to me as soon as possible. Best regards The Developer Team Superbitpanda” 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in its claim, Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the 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”. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has demonstrated that it owns rights in the trademark BITPANDA in connection with online marketplace services and financial services, such as money exchanges and transfers. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety, with the addition of the superlative “super” and the “.com” generic Top Level Domain (gTLD). The word “super” and the “.com” gTLD do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with Complainant’s BITPANDA mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant contends that Respondent is not affiliated with or connected to Complainant in any way. At no time has Complainant licensed or otherwise endorsed, sponsored or authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s mark or to register the disputed domain name. The record is devoid of any facts that establish any rights or legitimate interests of Respondent in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has any rights that might predate Complainant’s adoption and use of its mark. Respondent has not made, and is not making, a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, the record indicates that Respondent was well aware of Complainant’s mark and has copied portions of Complainant’s website into Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name. This includes the names and pictures of Complainant’s manager’s and co-founders, Complainant’s company registration number and Legal Entity Number, and Complainant’s head office address. The record indicates that Respondent used the disputed domain name to somehow impersonate Complainant, or lure Internet users into believing that the website at the disputed domain name is endorsed by or affiliated with Complainant, which is false. In addition, the disputed domain name has been used to encourage Internet users to open accounts on Respondent’s fake platform to make financial deposits (potentially of many thousands of USD) with the belief that the funds will be invested in cryptocurrencies and will generate a return on investment. Such fraudulent use can never confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The record indicates that the disputed domain name is being used in connection with a fraudulent scam designed to lure consumers into providing financial information or payment to Respondent. The record indicates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its marks prior to registering the disputed domain name and that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in connection with a fraudulent scam for Respondent’s commercial gain by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark. Respondent knowingly adopted Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name in an effort to create the false impression that Respondent is associated with Complainant or is an authorized representative of Complainant, so as to defraud unsuspecting consumers into providing their financial information, or providing payment, to Respondent for Respondent’s personal profit and gain. Respondent’s scheme enables Respondent to collect personal data, and money when Internet users are misled into making payments believing they are investing in cryptocurrencies at Complainant’s website. In addition, when registering the disputed domain name, Respondent provided Registrar with inaccurate or incomplete contact details. The postal address does not contain any street name or building number. As a consequence, those contact details makes Respondent unreachable by such means. The provision of false contact information underlying a privacy or proxy services is an indication of bad faith. Respondent has not only communicated incomplete contact details but is also using a privacy service to conceal its identity and contact details. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name, <superbitpanda.com> be transferred to Complainant. Lynda J. Zadra-Symes Sole Panelist Date: September 1, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around superbitpanda.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.