Bitpayoptions.ltd

The timeline behind bitpayoptions.ltd

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 BitPay, Inc. v. Ebuka Victor Claim Number: FA2210002017641 PARTIES Complainant is BitPay, Inc. (“Complainant”), USA, represented by Stephen M. Vaughn of Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, USA. Respondent is Ebuka Victor (“Respondent”), Nigeria. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <bitpayoptions.ltd>, 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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 26, 2022; Forum received payment on October 26, 2022. On October 26, 2022, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bitpayoptions.ltd> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 31, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 21, 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@bitpayoptions.ltd. Also on October 31, 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 29, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 i) Complainant BitPay, Inc. is the world’s largest Bitcoin payment processor and an award-winning, nationally-recognized leader in cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. Complainant claims rights in the BITPAY mark, inter alia, through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,734,069, registered May 12, 2015). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITPAY mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, only adding the generic term “options” and the “.ltd” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). ii) Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its BITPAY mark in the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant. Respondent likely intends to use the disputed domain name for the purpose of conducting phishing schemes. The disputed domain name’s resolving website offers competing services. iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark. Respondent’s concealment of its true identity and provision of false or nonexistent contact information on the website is evidence of bad faith. Respondent is using the disputed domain name for an illegitimate phishing scheme. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a legitimate business purpose. Respondent has a history of registering domain names in bad faith. Respondent had constructive or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BITPAY mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on April 7, 2022. 2. Complainant has established rights in the BITPAY mark, inter alia, through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,734,069, registered May 12, 2015). 3. The disputed domain name’s resolving website purports to be an “advanced investment platform based in England” that offers a cryptocurrency investment platform which is in competition with Complainant. 4. The disputed domain name’s resolving website has a phishing scheme. 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 claims rights in the BITPAY mark, inter alia, through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,734,069, registered May 12, 2015). Registration with the USPTO is generally sufficient in demonstrating rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Ecolab USA Inc. v. (name redacted), FA 2003001888902 (Forum Apr. 20, 2020) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for ECOLAB is sufficient to demonstrate its rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Complainant provides evidence of the trademark registration with the USPTO. Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has rights in the BITPAY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant argues the disputed domain name <bitpayoptions.ltd> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITPAY mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, only adding the generic term “options” and the “.ltd” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). The mere addition of a generic term and gTLD is not enough to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark. See MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”); see also Morgan Stanley v. Eugene Sykorsky / private person, FA 1651901 (Forum Jan. 19, 2016) (concluding that the addition of a generic term and top level domain to a trademark is inconsequential under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.). The Panel therefore finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITPAY mark. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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 an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”). Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the BITPAY mark. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The Panel notes the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name was initially privacy protected, but the registrant has recently been revealed as “Ebuka Victor.” Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s BITPAY mark in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Complainant specifically points out that the disputed domain name’s resolving website purports to be an “advanced investment platform based in England” that offers a vague cryptocurrency investment platform where users create an account to make an investment by choosing one of three investment plans that promise a return on investment after only 5 days. Once a user opens a Bitcoin wallet and stores its Bitcoin, the Bitcoin is no longer accessible and no profits are available to withdraw. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name’s resolving website has a phishing scheme. The Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name to engage in a phishing scheme or impersonate Complainant or pass Respondent off as Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark. Use of a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant or pass off as a complainant and offer competing or counterfeited goods may be evidence of bad faith per 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 disputed 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 Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. LI FANGLIN, FA 1610067 (Forum Apr. 25, 2015) (finding respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because the respondent used the resolving website to sell the complainant’s products, using images copied directly from the complainant’s website), see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”). The Panel recalls that Complainant has provided the Panel with screenshots of the disputed domain name's resolving website which purports to be an “advanced investment platform based in England” that offers a vague cryptocurrency investment platform where users create an account to make an investment under the “BITPAYOPTIONS” mark which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, and advertises investment services. Therefore, the Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) or (iv). Complainant further contends that Respondent is using the disputed domain name for a phishing scam, pursuant to which users are solicited to open a cryptocurrency trading account and purchase Bitcoin with a purported high return on investment, however once a user opens an account and “invests” their money, their investment is no longer accessible. After registering for the “platform,” users are given the option to fund their account by transferring money to the account through dollars, Bitcoin, or other cryptocurrencies. The real purpose of the “platform” is either to i) misappropriate any money or currency that is “deposited” into a user’s account, or ii) to gain access to the user’s bank account or cryptocurrency wallet information. Use of a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme may constitute bad faith through disruption of a complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Teleflex Incorporated and Teleflex Medical Incorporated v. Andrew Missick, FA1962696 (Forum October 6, 2021) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by posing as Complainant’s Corporate Vice President and President for Global Commercial through email in an attempt to solicit bank wire information from Complainant’s partners.); see also Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant’s CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”). Therefore, the Panel agrees with Complainant and finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Additionally, Complainant contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BITPAY mark. While constructive knowledge is insufficient for finding of bad faith, per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) actual knowledge of a complainant’s trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith and may be demonstrated by the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name as an email address to impersonate complainant. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum January 5, 2018) (“[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used that as an email address to pass itself off as Complainant shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration.”). The Panel infers, due to the notoriety of Complainant’s mark and the manner of use of the disputed domain name that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BITPAY mark at the time of its registering the disputed domain name, and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <bitpayoptions.ltd> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: December 5, 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.