Falconx.ltd + 7 more domains

The timeline behind falconx.ltd

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION FalconX Limited v. jimmy el costa / Leb host / FalconX LTD Claim Number: FA2501002133175 PARTIES Complainant is FalconX Limited ("Complainant"), represented by Steven M. Levy of Accent Law Group, Inc., Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is jimmy el costa / Leb host / FalconX LTD ("Respondent"), France. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <falconx.ltd>, <falconx.group>, <falconx.broker>, <falconx.me>, <falconx.vip>, <falconx.trade>, <falconx.forex> and <falconx.markets>, registered with NameCheap, 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. Dennis A. Foster as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 3, 2025; Forum received payment on January 3, 2025. On January 3, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <falconx.ltd>, <falconx.group>, <falconx.broker>, <falconx.me>, <falconx.vip>, <falconx.trade>, <falconx.forex> and <falconx.markets> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 January 6, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 27, 2025 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@falconx.ltd, postmaster@falconx.group, postmaster@falconx.broker, postmaster@falconx.me, postmaster@falconx.vip, postmaster@falconx.trade, postmaster@falconx.forex and postmaster@falconx.markets. Also on January 6, 2025, 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. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on January 27, 2025. The Complainant submitted an Additional Submission on January 29, 2025, while the Respondent submitted an Additional Submission on February 2/3, 2025. Pursuant to Supplemental Rule 7, the Panel has exercised its discretion to accept these Additional Submissions. In doing so, the Panel recognizes that a proceeding involving eight disputed domain names necessarily is a complex one. On January 27, 2025, pursuant to the Parties' requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dennis A. Foster 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. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the disputed domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS The Panel has noted that the Respondent has three different names, but the Panel finds this is the same person(s) or entity that registered and controls the eight disputed domain names just as Forum also concluded using the same information that the registrar of the eight disputed domain names provided on the registrants. In any case, the Respondent has come forward to participate in this proceeding, and has not raised an issue with its three names. A fortiori, the Panel finds that the Respondent is correctly named in this proceeding. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant --The Complainant owns the trademark FALCONX and makes extensive use of it for cryptocurrency brokerage such that it has become internationally well-known. --Each of the disputed domain names is identical on its face to Complainant's own "www.falconx.io" website address. --Consumers are led to believe that the disputed domain names are controlled by Complainant or are at least affiliated with the Complainant. --Respondent's actions are not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy paragraph 4(c)(i). Respondent's website is an attempt to impersonate Complainant and to pass itself off as an outlet for the Complainant's services. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii). --The Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names without intent for commercial gain and so its actions do not fall within Policy paragraph 4(c)(iii). --The Respondent registered the disputed domain names in order to disrupt the Complainant's business. --The Respondent registered the confusingly similar domain names in order to attract Internet users to them for commercial gain in violation of Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). --The Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant's trademark prior to registering the disputed domains because of extensive use and media exposure. --The Respondent's creation of a website that seeks to compete with and impersonate the Complainant constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy paragraphs 4(ii) and (iv). --There are mail exchange (MX) records associated with all but one of the disputed domain names which indicates the Respondent may engage in sending spam or "phishing". --There is here a Policy paragraph 4(b)(ii) pattern of Respondent bad faith because of multiple disputed domain name registrations. B. Respondent --The Respondent is duly authorized to do business in cryptocurrency in and by the Caribbean country of St. Lucia. C. Additional Submissions Complainant's Additional Submissions --It is doubtful that the Respondent is a St. Lucia company. --All of the disputed domain names now automatically redirect to a new web site at the domain name <fax.trade>. Respondent's Additional Submissions --The Respondent's corporate registrations are valid. --The Complainant never contacted the Respondent prior to this dispute. --Until this Complaint was filed, the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant's existence. --The Complainant's FALCONX trademark is not widely used in the United Arab Emirates, which is the Respondent's target market. --The Respondent's business is distinct from the Complainant's. --The Respondent does not use the Complainant's logo, branding or terminology. --The Respondent's website is available in both Arabic and English, aligning with the Respondent's target audience in the Middle East. In contrast, the Complainant's website is only in English. --The Complainant does not operate in the United Arab Emirates as it claims. --The Respondent operates in good faith and the Complaint should be dismissed. FINDINGS The Complainant is a USA cryptocurrency brokerage company operating primarily out of Malta. The Complainant began operations in 2018 but, according to reputable trade and financial media, already is internationally prominent in its field. The Complainant owns several FALCONX trademarks of note that it uses to conduct its cryptocurrency brokerage business. These include United States federal trademark registration no. 6072299, registered on June 9, 2020 in international classes 036 (cryptocurrency exchange services) and 042 (computer services). The Complainant also owns World International Property Organization ("WIPO") trademark no. 1730278, registered on September 28, 2022 in international classes 036 and 042 per supra, with designated countries that include the USA, the UK, the European Union, China, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and India. The Complainant is active on the Internet at its primary website located at "www.falconx.io" and on X (formerly Twitter) and InterLink. The Complainant registered its <falconx.io> domain name on May 5, 2022. The Respondent is an entity/individuals with a business office contract in St. Lucia but also with contact addresses in France and Lebanon and Cyprus. The Respondent registered all eight of the disputed domain names on January 15, 2024 except for <falconx.trade>, which it registered one day later on January 16, 2024. The Respondent has a website at only one of the disputed domain names, i.e., at <falconx.ltd>. All the other seven disputed domain names automatically lead to the <falconx.ltd> disputed domain name. The Respondent's website is more rudimentary but still similar to the Complainant's, and essentially claims to offer the same cryptocurrency brokerage services. The Respondent uses English with an Arabic translation option at its website and claims to be interested primarily in the Middle East market, the United Arab Emirates in particular. After this Complaint was filed and this proceeding began, the Respondent began using the disputed domain names to refer users to a new domain name and website, i.e., <fax.trade>, that still offers cryptocurrency brokerage services that compete with those of the Complainant. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 the 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has exhibited a United States federal and a WIPO international FALCONX trademark that it owns and whose registration details the Panel has set out above in the Factual Findings section. As is now well-settled under the Policy, the Panel finds this is conclusive proof that the Complainant has trademark rights in the eight disputed domain names. WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.2.1. The disputed domain names are identical to the Complainant's FALCONX trademark because the only difference in each case is the general top level domain ("gTLD") which should not be considered when testing for identity or confusing similarity. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and 1.11. See also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the mere addition of the generic top-level domain ".com" is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark). Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has carried its burden of proof under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) to show that all eight disputed domain names are identical or confusingly to a name in which the Complainant has trademark rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant affirms that the Respondent does not have any authorization from the Complainant to use its FALCONX trademark in the disputed domain names. This constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy in the Complainant's favor. It is then up to the Respondent to come forward to rebut the Complainant's prima facie case. WIPO 3.0, section 2.1. The Respondent has indeed come forward to argue that it is using the disputed domain names to offer different financial services than the Complainant's, and that it is targeting a different part of the world market than the Complainant, i.e., the Middle East and the United Arab Emirates in particular. The Respondent also argues that it is operating in bona fide because, before this Complaint was brought, it had never heard of the Complainant, its trademark or its business. The Complainant has countered the Respondent's claims of a bona fide offering of financial services as follows: Quote: Prior UDRP Panels have found that such attempts to impersonate a complainant and parasitize its trademark by promoting monetized activity supports a finding that a respondent is not engaged in the bona fide offering of goods and services. In Licensing IP International S.à.r.l. v. Pavel Smirnov, FA 1953889 (Forum Aug. 9, 2021), the Respondent provided content similar to and competing with Complainant's website. The obvious purpose of Respondent's content at the <falconx.ltd> website is to pass itself off as Complainant in an effort to cause consumers to think that they are visiting Complainant's official website, while Respondent promotes unrelated (and likely fraudulent) asset trading under Complainant's FALCONX Mark designed to earn revenue for Respondent. Thus, Respondent's actions are in no way a bona fide offering of the Disputed Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). Unquote The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of financial services as the Respondent contends. The Respondent instead is passing itself off as the Complainant, and this is recognized as a bad faith, not a bona fide, offering of services. The Panel will discuss this in greater detail below in the Bad Faith section of this Decision. WIPO 3.0, section 2.13.1. It is disingenuous for the Respondent to argue that it is targeting only the United Arab Emirates or the Middle East: in the context of cryptocurrency, the Internet is at its most international, is almost unregulated, and thus any cryptocurrency website can be presumed to seek a broad international clientele. The Panel thus finds that the Complainant has carried its burden of proof under Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii) to show that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As the Complainant contends, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the eight disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy paragraph 4b(iv): "by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location." Despite the Respondent's contentions to the contrary, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent was familiar with the Complainant, its business and its trademarks, when the Respondent registered the eight disputed domain names within two days that all contain the Complainant's FALCONX trademark. Then the Respondent proceeded to set up a website that resembled the Complainant's website, and to offer financial services that compete with those of the Complainant. It strains credulity to accept, as the Respondent contends, that the Respondent carried out this plan without having ever heard of the Complainant. WIPO 3.0, section 3.4. See also Google Inc. v. Ahmed Humood, FA 1591796 (Forum Jan. 7, 2015) ("Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark at the time of domain name registration based on the fame of Complainant's GOOGLE mark and Respondent's use of one of the Disputed Domain Names to detail Internet domain name registration and maintenance services related to and in competition with Complainant."). The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has carried its burden of proof under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii) to show that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. 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 <falconx.ltd>, <falconx.group>, <falconx.broker>, <falconx.me>, <falconx.vip>, <falconx.trade>, <falconx.forex> and <falconx.markets> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dennis A. Foster, Panelist Dated: February 10, 2025 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.