Foundryusaminer.com

The timeline behind foundryusaminer.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 Foundry Digital LLC v. CHAPMAN GREGORY Claim Number: FA2502002141007 PARTIES Complainant is Foundry Digital LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Todd Marabella of Goodwin Procter LLP, Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is CHAPMAN GREGORY ("Respondent"), Great Britain. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <foundryusaminer.com>, registered with Cloudflare, 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. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 19, 2025. Forum received payment on February 19, 2025. On February 19, 2025, Cloudflare, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <foundryusaminer.com> domain name is registered with Cloudflare, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Cloudflare, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cloudflare, 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 February 25, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 17, 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@foundryusaminer.com. Also on February 25, 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 March 18, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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 Founded in 2017, Complainant, Foundry Digital LLC, provides financing and advisory services with a focus on digital asset mining and staking. Specifically, Complainant builds, maintains, and secures decentralized networks and also runs the largest Bitcoin mining pool. It has operated the website at "www.foundrydigital.com" since 2018. Complainant has common law trademark rights in FOUNDRY and registered trademark rights with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") in FOUNDRY DIGITAL. Respondent's <foundryusaminer.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <foundryusaminer.com> domain name. Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant and has never been authorized to use Complainant's marks. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known as "Foundry," "FoundryMiner" or any similar variation. On information and belief, Respondent registered the <foundryusaminer.com> domain with no bona fide intent to use the domain for any reason other than to confuse and mislead users into believing the website to which the domain name resolves is a legitimate site of Complainant. The website contains multiple instances of unauthorized use of Complainant's trademarks and logos. Respondent registered the <foundryusaminer.com> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its FOUNDRY and FOUNDRY DIGITAL marks and uses it with bad faith intent to create confusion with Complainant's mark for Respondent's commercial gain. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. 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 the domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (i) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii)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 as 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 has not provided evidence from which the Panel is able to conclude that Complainant has common law trademark rights in FOUNDRY. However, it has shown that it has rights in the FOUNDRY DIGITAL mark through registration with the USPTO (Reg. No. 7,295,052 registered on January 30, 2024 in Class 42 for "Empowering third parties to stake for digital currency, namely, through the provision of online infrastructure services, namely, hosting servers for use by others that enable users to participate in the staking of digital currency; providing temporary use of online, non-downloadable computer software that enables users to participate in pooled mining and staking digital currency"). It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0 "), section 1.7. The Panel finds Respondent's <foundryusaminer.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's FOUNDRY DIGITAL mark, only differing from the distinctive "foundry" element of the mark by the addition of the abbreviation "usa" and the word "miner", which are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark and instead evoke Complainant's business. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429. Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e. (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The <foundryusaminer.com> domain name was registered on September 9, 2024, several months after the registration of Complainant's FOUNDRY DIGITAL mark. It resolves to a website headed "FOUNDRY", stating: "Foundry USA: Leader in BTC cloud mining. Our comprehensive range of mining products and services is tailored to help individuals seamlessly navigate every stage of the bitcoin mining journey, empowering you to mine with confidence and ease from start to finish". Internet users are invited to create an account and buy a mining plan. These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <foundryusaminer.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including: (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. The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant, its FOUNDRY DIGITAL mark and its "www.foundrydigital.com" website when Respondent registered the <foundryusaminer.com> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website and of the products or services promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant has established this element. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <foundryusaminer.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: March 19, 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.