Coinroutes.org

The timeline behind coinroutes.org

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 CoinRoutes LLC v. Rampart Portfolio Partners LLC Case No. D2026-0193 1. The Parties Complainant is CoinRoutes LLC, United States of America (the “United States”), represented internally. Respondent is Rampart Portfolio Partners LLC, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <coinroutes.org> is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 16, 2026. On January 19, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 20, 2026, 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 (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on January 21, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on January 21, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 February 6, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 26, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on February 27, 2026. The Center appointed Timothy D. Casey as the sole panelist in this matter on March 5, 2026. 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. page 2 4. Factual Background Complainant is a financial technology company providing trading strategies and execution management solutions related to cryptocurrency and digital assets and is based in the United States. Complaint has operated since 2017 and has a registration for a trademark in the United States as follows: Mark Jurisdiction Class(es) Registration No. Registration Date COINROUTES REALPRICE United States 36 5,752,412 May 14, 2019 Complainant has also used the domain name <coinroutes.com> since 2017 and asserts that it has common law rights in the COINROUTES mark separate and apart from the registered trademark, (collectively the “COINROUTES Marks”). The disputed domain name was registered on December 9, 2025. At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name did not resolve to an active website. Complainant submitted evidence indicating that within days of registering the disputed domain name Respondent began carrying out a fraudulent “fake check scam” or “advance fee fraud” that involved the impersonation of employees of Complainant (the “Fraudulent Scam”). The Fraudulent Scam involved Respondent contacting victims in order to offer fake job offers for a remote position with Complainant. The fake job offers would include Complainant’s domain name in the body of the message, although emails were from the disputed domain name. Once victims responded, Respondent would send fraudulent checks along with instructions intended to get the victims to attempt to cash the fraudulent checks and then send Respondent wired funds or redemption information for purchased gift cards before the fraudulent checks could be refused by the victim’s financial institution. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, Complainant contends that it has rights in the COINROUTES Marks as noted herein. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is virtually identical to the COINROUTES Marks because the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the COINROUTES Marks, with the only difference being the generic Top-Level Domain, which does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because (i) there is no evidence it has ever been known by the disputed domain name, (ii) Complainant has not authorized, licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the COINROUTES Marks or to register the disputed domain name, and (iii) Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use offering of good or service or any bona fide offering of goods or services and is instead operating the Fraudulent Scam, which does not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests. Complainant contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith as evidenced by the almost 10 year gap between Complainant’s first use of the COINROUTES Marks and the registration date of the disputed domain name, the similarity between the COINROUTES Marks and the disputed domain name, and Respondent’s operation of the Fraudulent Scam, which evidence Respondent’s clear knowledge of the COINROUTES Marks at the time the disputed domain name was registered. Complaint further contends that the Fraudulent Scam evidences Respondent’s bad faith use of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings 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 Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel also finds Complainant has established unregistered trademark or service mark rights for the COINROUTES marks for the purposes of the Policy through its use of the <coinroutes.com> domain name incorporating the COINROUTES marks for services associated with its business since 2017. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.3. The COINROUTES marks are recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the COINROUTES marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. 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 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 that 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 3.1, 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 disputed 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 disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, the claimed Fraudulent Scam, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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. page 4 In the present case, the Panel notes that Respondent clearly knew of Complainant’s COINROUTES Marks as evidenced by its operation of the Fraudulent Scam within days of registering the disputed domain name, which demonstrates an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks. 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 3.1, section 3.2.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, the claimed Fraudulent Scam, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 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 <coinroutes.org> be transferred to Complainant. /Timothy D. Casey/ Timothy D. Casey Sole Panelist Date: March 17, 2026

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