Teamcoinbase.xyz

The timeline behind teamcoinbase.xyz

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.

DECISION Coinbase, Inc. v. Coin Base Claim Number: FA2602002207923 PARTIES Complainant is Coinbase, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by AJ Schumacher of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Coin Base ("Respondent"), New York, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <teamcoinbase.xyz>, registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC. 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. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 27, 2026; Forum received payment on February 27, 2026. On March 2, 2026, Squarespace Domains II LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <teamcoinbase.xyz> domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Squarespace Domains II LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains II 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 March 6, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 26, 2026 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@teamcoinbase.xyz. Also on March 6, 2026, 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 27, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows: Founded in 2012, Complainant Coinbase Inc. is a leading provider of end-to-end financial infrastructure and technology for the cryptoeconomy. Complainant offers a trusted and easy-to-use platform to access the cryptoeconomy, and allows users to invest, store, spend, earn, and use crypto assets including Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH), among many others. Complainant owns and has used the trademark COINBASE, alone or in combination with other word and/or design elements since at least as early as May 2012 for its services and products. In addition to its common-law rights, Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for its COINBASE marks in the US and various other jurisdictions around the world. THE DOMAIN IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO COMPLAINANT'S COINBASE MARKS. Complainant's common law rights and US registrations for its COINBASE marks establish Complainant's rights to the mark. The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's COINBASE marks, including because it prominently features Complainant's identical COINBASE mark in combination with the word "team," which can relate to Complainant and its "team" members, and the domain extension ".xyz." These additions are inadequate to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's COINBASE marks. Panels, including those involving Complainant and its COINBASE marks, have consistently held that a domain name containing a complainant's mark in its entirety is confusingly similar to that mark. In addition, adding generic, descriptive, or other terms, including those related to complainants' and their businesses, such as the term "team" in this case, is not sufficient to obviate the risk of confusion. Moreover, domain extensions, such as ".xyz," are irrelevant to the confusing similarity analysis. RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN THE DOMAIN. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(c)(ii) since WHOIS registration record for the domain name was initially privacy protected, but the disclosed registration information received from the registrar lists the registrant as "Coin Base," which is a pretextual attempt to legitimize Respondent's registration and use of the domain name and its impersonation of Complainant. In addition, Complainant has not authorized Respondent, or any associated person or entity, to use or register the COINBASE marks in any manner, nor is Respondent, the domain name, or any other associated person or entity a current or former licensee of Complainant and its COINBASE marks. Complainant also has no knowledge that Respondent, or any other person or entity associated therewith, are, or have ever been, commonly known by the domain name. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain under UDRP ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) for at least since the domain name resolves to a parked webpage through Squarespace, including displaying the domain name and indicating that the page is purportedly "under construction." Using domain name to resolve to inactive or inaccessible websites, or parked websites, or passively holding disputed domain names, does not amount to a bona fide use or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name such that respondents can establish legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name under the UDRP Policy. The MX (mail exchanger) records for the domain name are configured to permit the domain name to be used for email, which indicates Respondent may intend to use the domain name in connection with a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Lastly, to the extent that Respondent does not reply in this case, the Panel may presume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. RESPONDENT'S BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE OF THE DOMAIN. Respondent "intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users" to the webpage located at <teamcoinbase.xyz> by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of" the domain name, the webpage, and/or Respondent's activities. The domain name prominently features Complainant's identical COINBASE mark in combination with the term "team" and the domain extension ".xyz." The domain name also currently resolves to a parked webpage through Squarespace, including displaying the domain name and indicating that the page is purportedly "under construction." Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name in this manner is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace, disrupts Complainant's business, and indicates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii), (iv). In addition, any use of the domain name in connection with a fraudulent email phishing scheme would constitute bad faith under the UDRP Policy and configuration for MX, in combination with the disclosed registration information listing the registrant as "Coin Base" and utilizing one of Complainant's official support phone numbers, is indicative of this intent. Also, there is a legal presumption of bad faith when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant's trademarks, actually or constructively and actual knowledge is provable through the totality of circumstances surrounding the registration of the at-issue domain name. The evidence and totality of circumstances surrounding the domain name undoubtedly establish that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its COINBASE marks prior to registering and using the domain name. Complainant has continuously and exclusively used the COINBASE marks since at least as early as 2012, and since that time, Complainant and its COINBASE mark have become famous in the cryptocurrency industry. In view of this alone, it is inconceivable that Respondent did not have actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the COINBASE marks before registering and using the domain name. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the COINBASE mark. Complainant's rights in COINBASE existed prior to Respondent's registration of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a parking page. 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant shows it has rights in its COINBASE mark via the mark's registration with the USPTO as well as other national registries worldwide. Any relevant national trademark registration is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority). Respondent's <teamcoinbase.xyz> domain name contains Complainant's COINBASE trademark prefixed with the term "team" with all followed by the top-level domain name ".xyz." The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish Respondent's <teamcoinbase.xyz> domain name from the COINBASE trademark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <teamcoinbase.xyz> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's COINBASE mark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA 2038314 (Forum July 26, 2023) ("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") Rights or Legitimate Interests 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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and "Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name."). The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name indicates that the domain name's nominal registrant is "Coin Base." However, there is no evidence that supports the finding that Respondent is commonly known by <teamcoinbase.xyz> notwithstanding Respondent's unauthorized use of Complainant's trademark when registering the at-issue domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that, although the respondent listed itself as "Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund" in the WHOIS contact information, it did not provide any affirmative evidence to support this identity; combined with the fact that the complainant claimed it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Respondent holds <teamcoinbase.xyz> passively. Upon browsing to <teamcoinbase.xyz> a parked page is revealed stating that the page is purportedly "under construction." Respondent's failure to actively use <teamcoinbase.xyz> to access substantive content is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018) ("Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)."); see also, AbbVie Inc. v. AbbVie CDO, FA 2102493 (Forum July 9, 2024) (finding no legitimate rights or interests when the disputed domain resolved to a webpage displaying an "under construction" message). Furthermore, Respondent's failure to respond to the Complaint permits the presumption that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in <teamcoinbase.xyz>. See Target Brands, Inc., FA 1213530 (Forum Aug. 14, 2008) ("Respondent has not replied to the Complaint. Accordingly, the Panel may presume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name."). Given the foregoing, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in <teamcoinbase.xyz>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith. Respondent's at-issue domain name fails to address any substantive content and can thus be considered inactive. Respondent's passive holding of <teamcoinbase.xyz> disrupts Complainant's business and demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iii ). See Regions Bank v. Darla atkins, FA 1786409 (Forum June 20, 2018) ("Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because Respondent uses the domain name to host an inactive website."); see also, Solar Turbines v. Ogunade (Forum FA1811640) ("...Respondent inactively holds the <solarsturbines.com> domain name, thereby supporting a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).") Moreover, Respondent registered <teamcoinbase.xyz> with actual knowledge of Complainant and Complainant's trademark rights in COINBASE. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's rights is clear given the notoriety of Complainant's trademark; given that registration information for <teamcoinbase.xyz> includes one of Complainant's official support phone numbers; and given Respondent's inclusion of the suggestive term "team" in the at-issue domain name. Respondent's registration of <teamcoinbase.xyz> with knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights in COINBASE further indicates Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4 (a)(iii). See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, 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, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). 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 <teamcoinbase.xyz> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: March 29, 2026 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.