Visacoin.net

The timeline behind visacoin.net

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 Visa International Service Association v. Elias Rebeh Claim Number: FA2502002139282 PARTIES Complainant is Visa International Service Association ("Complainant"), represented by Michael J. McCue of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Nevada, USA. Respondent is Elias Rebeh ("Respondent"), Sweden. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <visacoin.net>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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. Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 7, 2025; Forum received payment on February 7, 2025. On February 10, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <visacoin.net> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 February 11, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 3, 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@visacoin.net. Also on February 11, 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 February 11, 2025. On February 11, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant 1. Respondent's <visacoin.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's VISA mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <visacoin.net> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and uses the <visacoin.net> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent claims a lack of bad faith and consents to the transfer of the <visacoin.net> domain name to Complainant. FINDINGS Complainant holds registrations for its well-known VISA around the world, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Registration No. 1,924,112). Respondent registered the <visacoin.net> domain name on January 27, 2025, and uses it to compete with 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the VISA mark based on registration with trademark authorities around the world. See Alibaba Group Holding Limited v. YINGFENG WANG, FA 1568531 (Forum Aug. 21, 2014) ("Complainant has rights in the ALIBABA mark under the Policy through registration with trademark authorities in numerous countries around the world.") Respondent's <visacoin.net> domain name uses the VISA mark and adds the descriptive word "coin" and the ".net" gTLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.) The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's <visacoin.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's VISA mark. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), 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 asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <visacoin.net> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its VISA mark. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Elias Rebeh". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 2011001919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) ("Here, the WHOIS information lists "er nong wu" as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).") Complainant argues that Respondent is not using the <visacoin.net> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), using a disputed domain name to sell competing goods or services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Watts Water Technologies Inc. v. wo ci fa men zhi zao (kun shan) you xian gong si, FA 1740269 (Forum Aug. 11, 2017) ("Respondent has used the domain name to resolve to a website that mimics the color scheme associated with Complainant's WATTS brand and displays counterfeit versions of Complainant's products for purchase in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant… [therefore], the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name."); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Inversiones HP Milenium C.A., FA 105775 (Forum Apr. 12, 2002) ("Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name [<hpmilenium.com>] to sell counterfeit versions of Complainant's [HP] products is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).") Complainant provides screenshots of the content at the disputed domain name, showing that Respondent offers a crypto coin using the VISA mark. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds that Respondent uses the <visacoin.net> domain name to divert users to its website, disrupting Complainant's business for its own commercial gain, demonstrating bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Linchunming / linchunming, FA1411001589214 (Forum Dec. 22, 2014) ("As mentioned above, Respondent uses the domain name to promote counterfeit goods like those offered by Complainant. Doing so disrupts Complainant's business and demonstrates Respondent's bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)."); 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 also finds that Respondent registered the <visacoin.net> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the VISA mark, due to the fame of the mark and the use of the domain name to directly compete with Complainant, and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name")); see also iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) ("Respondent's prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent's use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant"). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <visacoin.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: February 12, 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.