Panteraeth.com

The timeline behind panteraeth.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.

DECISION Pantera Advisors LLC v. aaa / bbb ccc Claim Number: FA2210002016342 PARTIES Complainant is Pantera Advisors LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Scott Kareff of Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, New York. Respondent is aaa / bbb ccc (“Respondent”), US. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <panteraeth.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC. 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. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 17, 2022. Forum received payment on October 18, 2022. On October 18, 2022, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <panteraeth.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC 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 October 19, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 8, 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@panteraeth.com. Also on October 19, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On November 9, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 is a prominent SEC-registered investment adviser founded in 2004, focused on ventures, tokens and projects related to blockchain technology, digital currency and crypto assets. Complainant has rights in the trademark PANTERA, registered inter alia with the USPTO, Reg. No. 5,733,587, registered on April 23, 2019. Respondent’s domain name <panteraeth.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which was registered and is used in bad faith. As to legitimacy, Respondent is not commonly known by the name Pantera and is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name. Rather, its use is with intent for commercial gain to defraud individuals into providing their private personal information and/or into sending money to Respondent under the fraudulent pretence that Respondent is Complainant and/or that investors could invest in funds managed by Complainant. Specifically, the disputed domain name is used to host a fraudulent website and/or App to which visitors are directed to open a trading account and provide sensitive personal information including their bank account details. In one instance, a visitor who opened a trading account on Respondent’s website sought to withdraw money from their account. The request was denied and Respondent instead charged the visitor a “fine” totalling 15% of the total balance in their trading account. Respondent then demanded that the visitor pay an additional 15% of their total balance as a “tax”. Respondent has engaged in a similar pattern of fraudulent activity with a different visitor. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. 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 Complainant has shown that it has rights in the trademark PANTERA, registered inter alia with the USPTO, Reg. No. 5,733,587, registered on April 23, 2019. The Panel finds Respondent’s <panteraeth.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, since it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the abbreviation “eth”, which does nothing to distinguish the domain name from the mark, and the inconsequential gTLD “.com”, which may be ignored. Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e. (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent 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) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The <panteraeth.com> domain name was registered on December 19, 2021, many years after Complainant has shown that its PANTERA mark had become well-known. It resolves to a website seeking personal and financial information from persons wishing to invest in and withdraw funds managed by Complainant. These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <panteraeth.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) are not exclusive. The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainants’ well-known PANTERA mark when Respondent registered the <panteraeth.com>domain name and that Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith for the purpose of obtaining sensitive personal and financial information and money by impersonating Complainant. Complainant has established this element. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <panteraeth.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: November 10, 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.