Bitpaytrading.com

The timeline behind bitpaytrading.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION BitPay, Inc. v. Mickey Ray Claim Number: FA2501002137871 PARTIES Complainant is BitPay, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Ashley N. Klein of Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Mickey Ray ("Respondent"), Great Britain. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <bitpaytrading.com>, ('the Domain Name') registered with Gransy, s.r.o. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 30, 2025; Forum received payment on January 30, 2025. On February 3, 2025, Gransy, s.r.o. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bitpaytrading.com> Domain Name is registered with Gransy, s.r.o. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Gransy, s.r.o. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gransy, s.r.o. 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 February 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 24, 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@bitpaytrading.com. Also on February 3, 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. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On February 25, 2025 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 The Complainant owns the trade mark BITPAY registered for financial services and, inter alia, in the USA for payment processing services since 2015 with first use recorded as 2011. The Domain Name registered in 2023 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark containing it in its entirety with the addition of the generic word 'trading' and the gTLD .com which do not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant. The web site connected with the Domain Name is offering competing financial services and does not make it clear it has no connection with the Complainant. The web site provides a false address and telephone number indicating phishing. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non commercial or fair use. It is deceptive registration and use in bad faith in actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights and business confusing Internet users for commercial gain. Phishing is bad faith per se. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant owns the trade mark BITPAY registered for financial services and, inter alia, in the USA for payment processing services since 2015 with first use recorded as 2011. The Domain Name registered in 2023 is offering competing financial services and does not make it clear it has no connection with the Complainant. The web site provides a false address and telephone number indicating phishing. 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 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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant's BITPAY mark (which is registered in the USA for payment processing services since 2015), the generic word 'trading' and the gTLD .com. Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term 'trading' to the Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent is not authorised by the Complainant and does not appear to be commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (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 use of the Domain Name is commercial so cannot be legitimate non commercial fair use. The web site attached to the Domain Name offers competing services without making it clear that there is no connection with the Complainant and giving a false contact address and telephone number. The Panel finds this use is deceptive and for likely phishing purposes. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. (See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin, FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to compete with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.) See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) ("a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use"). The Respondent has not answered the Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein. Based on the evidence the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent's site is deceptive and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as offers competing services without making it clear that there is no connection with the Complainant and giving a false contact address and telephone number indicating likely phishing. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site and services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. (See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs, FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use). Phishing conduct is evidence of bad faith registration and use within the Policy 4(a)(iii). See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc v LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA 1625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv). 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 <bitpaytrading.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: February 25, 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.