Alphacapitals.com

The timeline behind alphacapitals.com

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 AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Alpha Capital Anstalt v. Robert Getty Case No. D2025-0840 1. The Parties Complainant is Alpha Capital Anstalt, Liechtenstein, represented by Dechert LLP, United States of America (“United States”). Respondent is Robert Getty, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <alphacapitals.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with TurnCommerce, Inc. DBA NameBright.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 28, 2025. On February 28, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 28, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on March 5, 2025, 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 March 7, 2025. 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 March 10, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 30, 2025. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 4, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on April 11, 2025. 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 a private investment firm that provides capital and guidance to emerging companies. It was registered on September 28, 2000 in Liechtenstein and has been providing its services since then mainly under the ALPHA CAPITAL ANSTALT mark. Complainant operates its business at “www.alphacapital.li”. The Domain Name was registered on July 12, 2013 and at the time of filing of the Complaint, it led to a website (the “Website”) impersonating Complainant, creating the illusion that it is Complainant’s website, prominently displaying the ALPHA CAPITAL ANSTALT mark, incorporating the names and biographical data of real individuals associated with Complainant and recipients of investments by Complainant, and also descriptions of services similar to those of Complainant. The Website included testimonials purportedly provided by four representatives of entities that have received investments from Complainant, and displayed an email address associated with the Domain Name with a street address in Liechtenstein, which was Complainant’s actual former address in Vaduz, Liechtenstein. The Website further displayed a copyright notice incorporating the ALPHA CAPITAL ANSTALT mark and a portal through which users could purportedly access accounts. Furthermore, Respondent used the Domain Name in an email fraud scheme, creating email addresses of individuals purportedly connected with Complainant, and contacting companies seeking for investors by pretending to be Complainant. Currently the Domain Name leads to an inactive website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. Notably, Complainant asserts that the Domain Name has resolved to a website which attempts to pass off as Complainant and has been used for fraudulent email scheme. Complainant further asserts that the Domain Name was initially registered by an entity in India, and in or about October 2024, long after Complainant established legitimate rights in its marks, Respondent acquired the Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (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 faith. page 3 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the Domain Name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.7. According to WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.1.1 the term “trademark or service mark” as used in UDRP, paragraph 4(a)(i) encompasses both registered and unregistered (sometimes referred to as common law) marks. Per the Complaint and as not disputed by Respondent, Complainant’s services are known in the relevant market under its ALPHA CAPITAL ANSTALT mark, and therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established unregistered trademark rights in ALPHA CAPITAL ANSTALT for the purposes of the Policy. The fact that the Respondent is shown to have been targeting the Complainant’s mark (e.g., based on the manner in which the related website is used as discussed below) may also support the Complainant’s assertion that its mark has achieved significance as a source identifier. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.3. The Panel finds the ALPHA CAPITAL ANSTALT mark is recognizable within the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. Although the letter “s” is added to the word “capital”, the Panel finds the addition of such letter does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and Complainant’s mark for the purposes of the Policy. Moreover, the Panel notes that the Website displayed the ALPHA CAPITAL ANSTALT mark with the content impersonating Complainant which demonstrates that Respondent sought to target Complainant’s mark through the Domain Name. This in turn confirms confusing similarity under the first element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.15. The “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) is disregarded, as gTLDs typically do not form part of the comparison on the grounds that they are required for technical reasons (Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn, WIPO Case No. D2017-0275; WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.11). The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Prior to the notice of the dispute, Respondent did not demonstrate any use of the Domain Name or a trademark corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. page 4 On the contrary, as Complainant has demonstrated, the Domain Name resolved to the Website, which featured Complainant’s ALPHA CAPITAL ANSTALT marks and suggested falsely that it was that of Complainant. Furthermore, Respondent used the Domain Name in an email fraud scheme. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, claimed impersonation/passing off, phishing or other types of fraud can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.13.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.2.1. The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. As regards bad faith registration of the Domain Name, Complainant’s evidence shows that the Domain Name was registered to a different entity in India until July 2017, and then was under privacy services with different registrars until October 2024. The WhoIs record of October 10, 2024 shows that the Domain Name was registered through the current Registrar. In any event, considering the Panel’s finding of Complainant’s establishment of its trademark rights in ALPHA CAPITAL ANSTALT and the use of the ALPHA CAPITAL ANSTALT marks on the Website with the content impersonating Complainant, the Panel finds that Respondent had Complainant and its mark in mind when registering the Domain Name. As regards bad faith use of the Domain Name, Complainant has demonstrated that the Domain Name was used to resolve to the Website, which prominently displayed Complainant’s ALPHA CAPITAL ANSTALT mark, former street address, biographies of actual individuals connected to Complainant, and testimonials purportedly provided by four representatives of entities that have received investments from Complainant thereby giving the false impression that it was operated by Complainant. The Domain Name was therefore used to intentionally create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark and business as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Website. This can be used in support of bad faith registration and use (Booking.com BV v. Chen Guo Long, WIPO Case No. D2017-0311 ; Ebel International Limited v. Alan Brashear, WIPO Case No. D2017-0001; Walgreen Co. v. Muhammad Azeem / Wang Zheng, Nicenic International Group Co., Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-1607; Oculus VR, LLC v. Sean Lin, WIPO Case No. DCO2016-0034; and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4). The Panel considers furthermore the following factors: (i) the use of the Domain Name in a fraud scheme which involved impersonating of Complainant and sending emails purportedly sent by Complainant; (ii) the failure of Respondent to submit any formal response; and (iii) the use of false registered Respondent information in the WhoIs records, including a non-existent, per Complaint, street address and mailing (“zip”) code in New York City, United States and a phone number with a Spanish country code. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, claimed impersonation/passing off, phishing or other types of fraud constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.4. The current non-use of the Domain Name does not change the Panel’s finding of Respondent’s bad faith. page 5 Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 Domain Name <alphacapitals.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Marina Perraki/ Marina Perraki Sole Panelist Date: April 25, 2025

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