The Complainant is Ctrader Limited of Limassol, Cyprus represented by Silverman Sherliker LLP, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The Respondents are Ibnu Rusdi of Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta, Indonesia and Private Registration of Sydney South, New South Wales, Australia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Crazy Domains FZ-LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 21, 2013. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 22, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming the first Respondent as the underlying registrant behind the privacy shield and provided contact details.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a) of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 1, 2013. In accordance with paragraph 5(a) of the Rules, the due date for Response was November 21, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 22, 2013.
The Center appointed Richard Hill as the sole panelist in this matter on November 26, 2013. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with paragraph 7 of the Rules. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant owns registered trademarks for the term CTRADER dating back to 2010.
The disputed domain name was registered on April 26, 2013. The web site at the disputed domain name is essentially identical to the Complainant’s web site, and it includes the Complainant’s marks. The disputed domain name has been used for phishing attacks. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant alleges that it is a neutral financial technology provider focusing on foreign currency trading software for the brokering and banking industries. It owns various registered trademarks containing the term CTRADER, dating back to 2010.
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar, in the sense of the Policy, to its mark because it consists of the mark followed by the letters “ts” which are an abbreviation of “trading software”, which is a description of the Complainant’s business.
The Complainant states that it has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its mark. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to point to a web site that is a direct copy of the Complainant’s web site, including content, visuals, layouts and the inclusion of the Complainant’s marks, with only minor changes (for example in the contact details).
Thus, says the Complainant, the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name deliberately to misleadingly divert customers. Indeed, the web site at the disputed domain name gives the impression that the Respondent is a branch of the Complainant. This is constitutes bad faith registration and use under the Policy.
Further, the Complainant states that, after it wrote to the original registrant of the disputed domain name, the registrant transferred the disputed domain name to what appears to be a domain name privacy service. This is cyberflight and indicates bad faith. The original registrant sent an abusive email to the Complainant, also indicative of bad faith.
In addition, the Complainant alleges (and provides evidence to support its allegation) that the disputed domain name has been used for phishing attacks. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. It did however submit an email containing no text but a picture of what appears to be a mummified body. 6. Discussion and Findings
Before proceeding to analyze the three elements of the Policy, the Panel recalls that, in accordance with 14 of the Rules, it shall draw such inferences from the Respondent’s failure to reply to the substance of the case as it considers appropriate. This rule is particularly germane in the present case, where the Respondent has chosen to reply, but not to reply to the substance of the case. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is settled case-law under the Policy that a domain name consisting of a trademark followed by a few letters is, in general, confusingly similar to the trademark. See V&S Vin & Sprit AB v. Ooar Supplies,WIPO Case No. D2004-0962; see also PepsiCo, Inc. v. Amilcar Perez Lista d/b/a Cybersor,WIPO Case No. D2003-0174. That case-law applies to the present case, in particular because the two letters “ts” that follow the Complainant’s mark can reasonably be held to stand for an abbreviation of the Complainant’s business, which is the production of “trading software”. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is using the disputed domain name for phishing attacks and to point to a web site that is a copy of the Complainant’s web site and contains the Complainant’s marks. As the Panel stated in Motorola, Inc. vs NewGate Internet, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0089, “actions that create, or tend to create, violations of the law can hardly be considered to be ‘bona fide’”. The Respondent has not replied; thus, the Panel concludes that it has no rights to the disputed domain name. Further, as explained below, the Panel notes that it cannot envisage how the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name could possibly be considered to be legitimate.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of proof for this element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
It is clear that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name misleadingly to attract users to its own website, by creating confusion. Indeed, the Respondent’s web site is nearly identical to the Complainant’s web site. Thus, the registration and use are in bad faith in the sense of 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See Asset Loan Co. Pty Ltd v. Gregory Rogers, WIPO Case No. D2006-0300; see alsoRevillon S.A. v. Fur Online Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0632; see also AutoNation, Inc. v. Paul Schaefer,WIPO Case No. D2001-0289.
Further, the Respondent is using, without authorization, the Complainant’s marks in its web pages. This also constitutes bad faith use under the Policy, see Motorola, Inc. vs NewGate Internet, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0089; see also Asset Loan Co. Pty Ltd v. Gregory Rogers, WIPO Case No. D2006-0300.
Additional evidence of bad faith is provided by the change in registrant after the first communication from the Complainant and by the abusive language used by the first registrant in its email to the Complainant. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition, paragraph 3.9. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Richard Hill
Sole Panelist
Date: December 2, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy