Etradeindia.store

The timeline behind etradeindia.store

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.

DECISION E*Trade Financial Holdings, LLC v. Aswin Raaju / etradeindiaofficial Claim Number: FA2207002006040 PARTIES Complainant is E*Trade Financial Holdings, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Aswin Raaju / etradeindiaofficial (“Respondent”), India. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <etradeindia.store>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc.. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 27, 2022; the Forum received payment on July 27, 2022. On July 28, 2022, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <etradeindia.store> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains Inc. 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 July 29, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 18, 2022 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@etradeindia.store. Also on July 29, 2022, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On August 22, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the 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 contends as follows: Complainant, E*Trade Financial Holdings, LLC, offers digital finance services. Complainant asserts rights in the E*TRADE mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <etradeindia.store> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it contains the E*TRADE mark in its entirety, merely adding the term “india” and the generic top-level domain name (“gTLD”) “.store”, and removing the asterisk to form the disputed domain name. Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <etradeindia.store> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s E*TRADE mark and is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the at-issue domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. Additionally, Respondent is attempting to offer services that are identical or closely related to Complainant’s offerings. Respondent registered and uses the <etradeindia.store> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass off as Complainant or to create the false impression that it is affiliated with Complainant. Additionally, Respondent uses the domain name to cause initial interest confusion. Finally, Respondent registered the at-issue domain name with constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the E*TRADE mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the E*TRADE mark. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity. Respondent registered the at‑issue domain names after Complainant acquired rights in the <etradeindia.store> trademark. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to impersonate Complainant and to address a website offering products related to Complainant’s offering under the E*TRADE. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark(s) in which Complainant has rights. Complainant’s USPTO trademark registration for E*TRADE is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).”). The at-issue domain name contains Complainant’s E*TRADE mark less its domain name impermissible asterisk, followed by the geographic term “india” and with all followed by the suggestive “.store” top-level. The differences between <etradeindia.store> and Complainant’s E*TRADE trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) that Respondent’s <etradeindia.store> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ETRADE trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”). Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively. Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”). The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Aswin Raaju / etradeindiaofficial” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by either the <etradeindia.store> domain name or by E*TRADE. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <etradeindia.store> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names because the WHOIS information listed “Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a Electromatic Equip't” as the registrant and there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names in dispute). Respondent uses the E*TRADE domain name to impersonate Complainant and address a website offering books regarding finance under the name “eTrade India Official” and offers a financial course under Complainant’s “ETrade” mark. Respondent’s use of the <etradeindia.store> domain name in this manner fails to show either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) (“Because [the] respondent in this case is also attempting to pass itself off as [the] complainant, presumably for financial gain, the Panel finds the respondent is not using the <mortgageresearchcenter.org> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”) Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present which permit the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. As mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses <etradeindia.store> to pretend to be affiliated with Complainant and address a website offering products related to goods or services actually offered by Complainant. Such use is disruptive to Complainant’s business and discloses Respondent’s attempt to capitalize on the confusion it created between the at-issue domain name and Complainant’s trademark. Respondent’s use of the domain name thus shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the at-issue domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent passes off as the complainant and offers online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant’s business); see also, Access Res. Servs., Inc. v. Individual, FA 97750 (Forum Aug. 13, 2001) (“Respondent's registration and use of the <misscleosucks.com> domain name to promote competing psychic services, assumedly for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”) Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the E*TRADE mark when it registered <etradeindia.store> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s use of <etradeindia.store> as mentioned elsewhere herein to offer products relating to those offered by Complainant. See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”). Respondent’s registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in such domain name further shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Norgren GmbH v. Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft, FA1501001599884 (Forum Feb. 25, 2014) (holding that the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant and its rights in the mark, thus demonstrating bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to purposely host links related to the complainant’s field of operation). 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 <etradeindia.store> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: August 23, 2022 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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