Cboenow.com, Cboefranchise.com

The timeline behind cboenow.com

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 Cboe Exchange, Inc. v. yu ming / hehuolianxiren / chen wu / xing hen jin rong ke ji Claim Number: FA2502002141252 PARTIES Complainant is Cboe Exchange, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Kevin M. Bovard of Baker & Hostetler LLP, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is yu ming / hehuolianxiren / chen wu / xing hen jin rong ke ji ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <cboenow.com> and <cboefranchise.com>, registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. 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. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 20, 2025; Forum received payment on February 20, 2025. On February 21, 2025, Gname.com Pte. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <cboenow.com> and <cboefranchise.com> domain names are registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Gname.com Pte. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gname.com Pte. Ltd. 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 March 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 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@cboenow.com and postmaster@cboefranchise.com. Also on March 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 March 25, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder." The Panel finds that the domain names are under common control as the websites displayed at these domains appear to be identical and purportedly offer a financial trading platform, a related service to those offered by Complainant. Further, both domain names were registered with the same registrar within a month of each other. This is sufficient to find that the domain names were registered by the same domain name holder. See The Valspar Corporation v. Zhou Zhiliang / zhouzhiliang / Zhiliang Zhou / Eric Chow / Visspa Ltd., FA 133934 (Forum Sept. 28, 2010); see also BBY Solutions, Inc. v. White Apple / Dev Kumar, FA 1787251 (Forum June 20, 2018). Consequently, the Panel will rule on all both contested domain names, and the two registrants are collectively referred to as "Respondent". PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant states that it is one of the most highly-regarded securities and derivatives exchanges in the United States and throughout the world. It offers trading internationally across a diverse range of products in multiple asset classes and geographies, including options, futures, U.S. and European equities, exchange-traded products, and global foreign exchange. Complainant has rights in the CBOE mark through its registration in the United States in 2001. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its CBOE mark as they incorporate the mark in its entirety and merely add generic/descriptive terms and the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com". According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the CBOE mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving webpages purports to offer competing services. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain names to purport to offer competing services in an attempt by Respondent to impersonate Complainant, likely to take Complaint's customers' information and money. Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the CBOE mark. Respondent used a privacy service. The WHOIS information is false. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the mark CBOE dating back to 2001 and uses it to operate a securities and derivatives exchange. The disputed domain names were registered in 2024. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The resolving websites purport to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. The WHOIS information is false. 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 disputed domain names incorporates Complainant's CBOE mark in its entirety, and merely add a generic/descriptive term together with the ".com" gTLD. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or generic terms is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same). Here, the WHOIS information of record shows that the registrant of the disputed domain names is "yu ming / hehuolianxiren / chen wu / xing hen jin rong ke ji". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The resolving websites purport to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. This is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Invesco Ltd. v. Premanshu Rana, FA 1733167 (Forum July 10, 2017) ("Use of a domain name to divert Internet users to a competing website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use."); see also Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent's use of the complainant's LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent's own website for commercial gain does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain names. Indeed, as already noted, the resolving websites purport to offer competing services. A respondent's use of a disputed domain name to offer goods or services competing with a Complainant may illustrate a respondent's bad faith. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent's use of the <saflock.com> domain name to offer goods competing with the complainant's illustrates the respondent's bad faith registration and use of the domain name, evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Further, the WHOIS information is false. This can indicate bad faith registration and use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. John Doe, FA 1339545 (Forum Sept. 29, 2010) ("The Panel also takes into account that the entity that Responded to the Complaint would not be the registrant of the disputed domain names for the instant proceedings. Therefore, that circumstance is also taken by the Panel as indication of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) by providing false or misleading WHOIS information to the registrar."); see also Video Direct Distribs. Inc. v. Video Direct, Inc., FA 94724 (Forum June 5, 2000) (finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by providing incorrect information to the registrar regarding the owner of the registered name). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use on this ground also. 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 <cboenow.com> and <cboefranchise.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: March 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.