Complainant is Stripe, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”).
Respondent is Edward Benincase of Patchogue, New York, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 6, 2016. On January 6, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 6, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing Respondent’s 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 the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 15, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 4, 2016. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on February 5, 2016.
The Center appointed Dina Leytes as the sole panelist in this matter on February 18, 2016. 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 the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations within the United States, European Union and Australia for the word “Stripe” including, inter alia, a standard character trademark registration for STRIPE, U.S. Registration No. 4,451,679, in International Class 036 for “financial services” (the “STRIPE Mark”). Complainant has used STRIPE in connection with financial services, namely payment processing services, throughout the United States since at least as early as 2011. Complainant’s official company website in the United States is “.” Examples of online companies that use Complainant as their payment processor include Reddit, Twitter, Wired and The Guardian. Complainant provides its services to businesses in over twenty-one countries worldwide.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 19, 2015. It is being used to direct customers to Complainant’s official login page which is located at “.”
Respondent is Edward Benincase of Patchogue, New York. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name fully incorporates its well-known STRIPE Mark followed by the generic term “login.” Complainant states that previous panels have found that the addition of a generic term following a trademark does not create a new or different right to the mark or diminish confusing similarity.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant states that while the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its STRIPE Mark, Complainant’s trademark rights in the STRIPE Mark predate the registration date of the disputed domain name and that Complainant has not authorized, licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name. Nor is there evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if Respondent has acquired trademark or service mark rights.
Further, Complainant alleges that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant alleges that at present, the disputed domain name redirects users to Complainant’s own home page and that this has been its sole use since registration. Complainant states that there is no affiliation between Complainant and Respondent that would justify the use of Complainant’s mark by Respondent in this manner. Complainant further states that given the use of the disputed domain name, Respondent is not using the term “stripe” in the dictionary sense. For these reasons, Complainant contends that there is nothing in the record to indicate that Respondent chose the disputed domain name for reasons unrelated to Complainant, and cites in support The American Automobile Association Inc. v. Private Whois Escrow Domains Private Limited / K.A.L. Services,WIPO Case No. D2009-0822.
Finally, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, to prevent Complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name and to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, consumers to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s STRIPE Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Complainant has submitted evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name just a few days following the highly publicized unveiling of Complainant’s new tool called “Relay.” Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name appropriates Complainant’s mark and uses the site as a portal to redirect Internet traffic to Complainant’s site. Complainant warns about a possible “phishing” scheme in which Respondent uses the disputed domain name as the hostname of an email server and sends emails from an address that ends in “@.” Customers may conclude that the emails are from Complainant because the disputed domain name redirects to Complainant’s homepage. Complainant submits that this would stand as proof of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. Complainant further alleges that the disputed domain name is one of a large number of domain names registered by Respondent that incorporates a third-party trademark, including the well-known third-party trademarks GOOGLE and PAYPAL. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant must prove that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The complainant bears the burden of proof on each of these elements. If a respondent does not submit a response to the complaint, a panel may draw appropriate inferences from such a default. However, the complainant must still support its assertions with actual evidence to succeed in a UDRP proceeding. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition at paragraph 4.6 and the cases cited therein. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has registered trademark rights in the STRIPE Mark. The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STRIPE Mark. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s STRIPE trademark in its entirety. Prior panels have held that when a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark, that may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy. See, e.g., Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Roche Products Limited v.Vladimir Ulyanov,WIPO Case No. D2011-1474; Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,WIPO Case No. D2000-1525; Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. ,WIPO Case No. D2002-0615; Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. mei xudong,WIPO Case No. D2013-0150; RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. InvisibleR, Domain Admin,WIPO Case No. D2010-1059.
The addition of the term “login” does not change the analysis as the addition of a generic word does not serve to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark. See, e.g., Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Fernand Macia / Registration Private / Domains By Proxy, LLC / DomainsByP,WIPO Case No. D2015-1699.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been met by Complainant. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
To prevail on this element, Complainant must make out at least a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may be used to show a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name:
(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use 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) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Based on the record before the Panel, Respondent has not made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, is not known by the STRIPE Mark, and there is no evidence that Respondent sought or obtained trademark rights in “Stripe” or any variation thereof. Nor has Respondent received any license, authorization or consent to use the STRIPE Mark in any manner from Complainant. Finally, Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The prima facie case presented by Complainant is sufficient to shift the burden of production to Respondent to demonstrate that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. By failing to file a response, Respondent has not presented any evidence of any rights or legitimate interests Respondent may have in the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been met by Complainant. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may evidence a respondent’s bad faith registration and use:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on respondent’s website or location.
The Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
As an initial matter, Complainant has raised allegations that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent Complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, and that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct, since Complainant alleges that Respondent owns “a select few” domain names that infringe upon well-known marks owned by Google, Inc. and Paypal, Inc. The Panel finds these claims to be insufficient since Complainant has not submitted any evidence of Respondent’s allegedly infringing ownership of such domain names.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Complainant has shown that Respondent has redirected the disputed domain name to Complainant’s own homepage soon after a highly publicized business venture by Complainant. Under such circumstances, there can be little doubt that when Respondent registered the disputed domain name, Respondent had the Complainant’s mark in mind. See Zurich Insurance Company v. Shi Wang,WIPO Case No. D2005-0712.
It appears that the use of the disputed domain name, namely its redirection towards the homepage of the Complainant, reveals an intent to mislead the public for the purpose of “phishing.” Phishing consists of attracting customers of a financial company to a webpage which imitates the real page of the company, with a view to having customers disclose confidential information like a credit card or bank account number, for the purpose of unlawfully charging such bank accounts or withdrawing money out of them. Although it is not clear from the record that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in such a manner yet, the Panel is satisfied that Respondent’s redirection to Complainant’s homepage, combined with the fact that Complainant is known as a payment processing company, creates an inference that Respondent has likely registered the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the trademark and domain name of Complainant for a fraudulent purpose. See Zurich Insurance Company v. Shi Wang, supra.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy have been met by Complainant. 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 Complainant.
Dina Leytes
Sole Panelist
Date: March 3, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy