Arculusqfs.com

The timeline behind arculusqfs.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 Arculus Holdings, L.L.C. v. Steven Martin Claim Number: FA2502002138885 PARTIES Complainant is Arculus Holdings, L.L.C. ("Complainant"), represented by Rex A. Donnelly of Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, Delaware, USA. Respondent is Steven Martin ("Respondent"), France. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <arculusqfs.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB. 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. The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 6, 2025; Forum received payment on February 6, 2025. On February 7, 2025, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <arculusqfs.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 7, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 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@arculusqfs.com. Also on February 7, 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 28, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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 made the following contentions. 1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of a digital security platform for authentication and digital asset protection for business and personal use and has done so since 2021 with its Arculus Cold Storage Wallet. 2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the ARCULUS trademark for, inter alia, downloadable computer software for use as a cryptocurrency wallet. In particular, the evidence will establish that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the ARCULUS trademark by virtue of its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration Number 6,748,827, registered on May 31, 2022 and numerous other trademarks for ARCULUS and derivatives including ARCULUS WALLET both domestically and internationally (collectively "the ARCULUS trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services. 3. The ARCULUS trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services. 4. As well as its trademark, the Complainant has registered numerous domain names including <arculuswallet.com> that it uses for websites where it offers and markets its products and services under the ARCULUS trademark. 5. The Respondent registered the <arculusqfs.com> domain name on November 26, 2024 ("the disputed domain name"). 6. The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the ARCULUS trademark with the addition of the letters "qfs", generally understood by internet users to signify the Quantum Financial System, the system related to the functioning of the Complainant's ARCULUS goods and services, together with the generic Top Level Domain ".com". 7. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ARCULUS trademark. 8. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. That is so because: (a) the Complainant has never given any licence, permission or authority to the Respondent to use the ARCULUS trademark or any similar mark and there has never been any affiliation or relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent; (b) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); (c) in formulating the domain name, the Respondent has not chosen a descriptive or generic term but a unique term that is arbitrary and suggestive, namely the Complainant's ARCULUS trademark; (d) the Complainant's ARCULUS trademark is registered in connection with, inter alia, computer software for managing and verifying cryptocurrency transactions on a blockchain and no other entity is entitled to use or does use ARCULUS in connection with such goods and services; and (e) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be shown that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. 9. The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. That is so because: (a) the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(i); (b) the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the Complainant as owner of the ARCULUS trademark from reflecting it in a domain name, within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii); and (c) the Respondent has registered the disputed domain primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii); (d) the Respondent has provided bogus information in the course of and to achieve the registration of the disputed domain name; (e) the Respondent has not made any active good faith use of the disputed domain name; (f) the Respondent initially used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website where it makes extensive use of the ARCULUS trademark to advertise and promote for sale "wallet recovery made easy with Arculus qfs recover", "(t)he smartest way to secure your cryptocurrency", the opportunity to "(r)estore access to your wallet whenever you need it", "(t)he crypto app for self-custodians", specifies specific payment methods by which those objectives may be achieved and asserts that its various alleged ARCULUS products "are registered trademarks of arculus qfs SAS"; (g) the Respondent has most recently caused the disputed domain name to resolve to an inactive website; (h) the Respondent by using the disputed domain name has sought to generate confusion between the ARCULUS trademark and the Respondent's offending website within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv); and (i) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances to be revealed by the evidence will show that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of a digital security platform for authentication and digital asset protection for business and personal use and has done so since 2021 with its Arculus Cold Storage Wallet. 2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the ARCULUS trademark for, inter alia, downloadable computer software for use as a cryptocurrency wallet. In particular, the evidence has established that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the ARCULUS trademark by virtue of its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration Number 6,748,827, registered on May 31, 2022 and numerous other trademarks for ARCULUS and derivatives including ARCULUS WALLET both domestically and internationally (collectively "the ARCULUS trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services. 3. The Respondent registered the <arculusqfs.com> domain name on November 26, 2024 ("the disputed domain name"). 4. The disputed domain name embodies without the consent of the Complainant, the ARCULUS trademark with the addition of the letters "qfs", generally understood by internet users to signify the Quantum Financial System, the system related to the functioning of the Complainant's ARCULUS goods and services, together with the generic Top Level Domain".com". 5. The Respondent initially used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website where it makes extensive use of the ARCULUS trademark to advertise and promote for sale goods and services purporting to be the same as those of the Complainant and more recently has caused the domain name to resolve to an inactive website. 6. By reason of the matters aforesaid and as demonstrated by the evidence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's ARCULUS trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and the domain name has been registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith. 7. Accordingly, the disputed domain name should be transferred to 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 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 first question that arises is whether the Complainant has a trademark or service mark on which it may rely in this proceeding. The evidence has established that the Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for ARCULUS with respect to, inter alia, downloadable computer software for use as a cryptocurrency wallet. In particular, the evidence has established that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the ARCULUS trademark by virtue of its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration Number 6,748,827, registered on May 31, 2022 and numerous other trademarks both domestically and internationally for ARCULUS and derivatives including ARCULUS WALLET (collectively "the ARCULUS trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services. The Complainant has thus established its trademark rights and hence its standing to bring this proceeding. The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's ARCULUS trademark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ARCULUS trademark for the following reasons. The disputed domain name embodies without the consent of the Complainant, the ARCULUS trademark with the addition of the letters "qfs" and the generic Top Level Domain".com". It is well-established that when a domain name includes the entirety of a trademark, as the domain name does in the present case, it is far more likely than not that the domain name is invoking the trademark, as the trademark is the dominant portion of the domain name, and that must be so in the present case. Internet users would therefore conclude that the principal purpose of the disputed domain name is to invoke the Complainant and its goods and services offered under its trademark. The evidence is that the letters "qfs" are understood by internet users to signify the Quantum Financial System, which is the system related to the functioning of the Complainant's ARCULUS goods and services and there is no evidence to the contrary. Thus, internet users would take the domain name to be invoking the ARCULUS trademark and its use in connection with that system. The addition of the Top Level Domain ".com" and other gTLDs is ignored in the interpretation of a domain name and cannot negate a finding of confusing similarity between a domain name and a trademark, as all domain names require such an extension. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's ARCULUS trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is now well-established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such 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)). The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations, taken in the order in which they are raised by the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because: (a) the Complainant has never given any licence, permission or authority to the Respondent to use the ARCULUS trademark or any similar mark and there has never been any affiliation or relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent; thus, it could not be contended that the domain name was registered with any sort of consent or agreement of the Complainant; (b) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); there is no evidence that the Respondent is so known, either commonly or otherwise and there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by any name other than its own; (c) in formulating the domain name, the Respondent has not chosen a descriptive or generic term but a unique term that is arbitrary and suggestive; that is so because the evidence is that ARCULUS is specifically the Roman tutelary god of chests and strongboxes which invokes the functions of security performed by the Complainant's products; (d) the Complainant's ARCULUS trademark is registered in connection with, inter alia, computer software for managing and verifying cryptocurrency transactions on a blockchain and no other entity is entitled to use or does use ARCULUS in connection with such goods and services; thus, the Respondent has registered and used a domain name incorporating, as it does, the trademark which is uniquely associated with the Complainant and it is inconceivable that this could give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name; (e) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be shown that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name; it is clear, for instance, that the Respondent's conduct in registering and using the domain name is not 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). The Complainant has therefore made out all of the grounds it relies on to show that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. All of these matters make out the prima facie case against the Respondent. As the Respondent has not filed a formal Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish. Registration and Use in Bad Faith It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in the Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive but that domain name proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. The Complainant has submitted on several grounds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. In view of the evidence discussed above, which is equally applicable to bad faith as it is to rights and legitimate interests, it is clear that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds relied on, as the Respondent has clearly been motivated by bad faith in the registration and use of the domain name and in particular in the deception in which it has engaged, and that it is the Complainant or authorised by the Complainant to offer its goods and services under its unique trademark. In particular, it is clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted: (a) the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(i); the Complainant has made out a strong case, supported by evidence, that domain names used in the field covered by the Complainant's goods and services are frequently used for deceptive purposes such as the conduct engaged in by the Respondent in the present case; that conduct is so egregious that there is a reasonable likelihood that the Respondent is motivated by the intention, among others, to try to sell the domain name to the Complainant; (b) the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the Complainant as owner of the ARCULUS trademark from reflecting it in a domain name, within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii); the pattern of conduct required to be proved under this paragraph has been demonstrated by Annex F2, which shows that the Respondent is claiming numerous other products that also include the name "arculus qfs", showing that it in engaged in a pattern of conduct of continually using the ARCULUS trademark and linking it to other purported products and thereby to restrict the Complainant in the use of its own trademark; (c) on the evidence, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii); the Respondent has purported, albeit illegitimately, to make the Complainant a competitor in the same field as itself; as the Complainant's business depends on being able to use its trademark, any limitation of that ability must disrupt it; (d) on the evidence, the Respondent has provided bogus information by using clearly fictitious information in the course of registering the disputed domain name; (e) the Respondent has not made any active good faith use of the disputed domain name; it initially used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website where it makes extensive use of the ARCULUS trademark to advertise and promote for sale "wallet recovery made easy with Arculus qfs recover", "(t)he smartest way to secure your cryptocurrency", the opportunity to "(r)estore access to your wallet whenever you need it", "(t)he crypto app for self-custodians", specifies specific payment methods by which those objectives may be achieved and asserts that its various alleged ARCULUS products "are registered trademarks of arculus qfs SAS"; most recently it has caused the disputed domain name to resolve to an inactive website; this shows clearly that in the registration and then the use of the domain name the Respondent has been motivated by bad faith; (f) the Respondent by using the disputed domain name has sought to generate confusion between the ARCULUS trademark and the Respondent's offending website within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv); it was clearly pivotal to the Respondent exercise that it should confuse internet users into believing that it either was the Complainant or was acting with its consent, that its website was genuine and that it was entitled to use the Complainant's trademark, none of which was true; and (g) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances revealed by the evidence, particularly Annex F2, have shown that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith; this includes the fact that the Respondent must have had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark to carry out the deception in which it has engaged. Finally, in addition to the specific provisions of the Policy and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name using the ARCULUS trademark and in view of the conduct of the Respondent, as shown by all of the available evidence, the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish. The Complainant has also correctly cited several prior UDRP decisions that support all of its contentions. The Complainant has therefore established all of the elements that it must show under the Policy and is entitled to the relief it seeks. 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 <arculusqfs.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC Panelist Dated: March 2, 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.