1inch.cloud

The timeline behind 1inch.cloud

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION 1inch Limited v. Blockchain Intelligence Case No. D2023-3221 1. The Parties Complainant is 1inch Limited, United Kingdom, represented internally. Respondent is Blockchain Intelligence, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <1inch.cloud> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 26, 2023. On July 27, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the Domain Name. On July 27, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which diff ered f rom the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on July 28, 2023, providing the registrant and contact inf ormation disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant f iled an amendment to the Complaint on July 31, 2023. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm 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 August 4, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was August 24, 2023. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied Respondent’s def ault on August 25, 2023. The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on September 1, 2023. The Panel f inds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and page 2 Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background Complainant owns trademark registrations f or 1INCH, including UK Trademark No. UK00003656236 covering Classes 9, 36, 41, 42, 45 (covering a range of items including cryptocurrency services), and the European Union trademark registration no 018373968, 1INCH (word), f iled on January 11, 2021, and registered on May 21, 2021, f or services in international classes 41 and 42. The Domain Name was registered on November 29, 2022, and currently leads to a pay-per-click (PPC) page with various links. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant asserts that it has established all three elements required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy for a transf er of the Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name: (i) the Domain Name is identical or conf usingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad f aith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration on the 1INCH trademark. The Panel f inds that the Domain Name is identical to the 1INCH trademark of Complainant. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.cloud” is disregarded, as gTLDs typically do not f orm part of the comparison on the grounds that they are required for technical reasons only (Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn, WIPO Case No . D2017-0275). Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the f ollowing elements: page 3 (i) bef ore any notice to Respondent of the dispute, Respondent’s 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) Respondent (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) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent f or commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Respondent has not submitted any response and has not claimed any such rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name. As per Complainant, Respondent was not authorized to register the Domain Name. Respondent has not demonstrated any preparations to use, or has not used the Domain Name or a trademark corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, the Domain Name is used to host a parked page with PPC links. The Panel f inds that it is not unlikely that Respondent received PPC fees from the linked websites and used the Domain Name f or its own commercial gain. The use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide of f ering where such links mislead Internet users and trade of f the complainant’s trademark (Virgin Enterprises Limited v. LINYANXIAO aka lin yanxiao, WIPO Case No. D2016-2302; WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), sectio n 2.9). Furthermore, there is no evidence on record giving rise to any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names on the part of Respondent within the meaning of p arag rap hs 4(c)(ii) and 4(c)(iii) o f the Po licy. In addition, the nature of the Domain Name, consisting of Complainant’s trademark carries a risk of implied af f iliation (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1). The Panel f inds that these circumstances do not confer upon Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation,” are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad f aith”: (i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily f or the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or (ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from ref lecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or page 4 (iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of conf usion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad f aith. Because the 1INCH mark had been registered before the Domain Name registration, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain Name. Moreover, the identity of the Domain Name with Complainant’s mark, reinforces the notion that Respondent was aware of an intentionally targeted Complainant in an attempt to confuse Internet users expecting to f ind Complainant. As regards bad faith use, the Domain Name leads to a website displaying links to third party sites, which suggests that, presumably, Respondent received PPC fees from the linked websites that were listed thereon. It has been recognized that such use of another’s trademark to generate revenue f rom Internet advertising can constitute registration and use in bad f aith (McDonald’s Corporation v. ZusCom, WIPO Case No . D2007-1353; Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. Robert Brodi, WIPO Case No . D2015-0299; SAP SE v. Domains by Proxy, LLC / Kamal Karmakar, WIPO Case No. D2016-2497; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.5). This, in view of the finding that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and in the circumstances of the case, affirms the bad faith (Aygaz Anonim Sirketi v. Arthur Cain, WIPO Case No . D2014-1206; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1). The Panel considers also the apparent concealment of the Domain Name holder’s identity through use of a privacy shield at the time of filing the complaint, to be further indicative of bad f aith (BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd v. Domains By Proxy LLC / Douglass Johnson, WIPO Case No . D2016-0364). Under these circumstances and on this record, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad f aith. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). 7. Decision Fo r the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name, <1inch.cloud>, be transf erred to Complainant. /Marina Perraki/ Marina Perraki Sole Panelist Date: September 15, 2023

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.