The Complainant is Coatue Management, L.L.C. of New York, New York, United States of America ("US"), represented by ZwillGen PLLC, US.
The Respondents are Loyalton Invest of Amsterdam, the Netherlands and Andrew Scott of Amsterdam, US. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC and the disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger, UAB (both registrars are hereinafter together referred to as the "Registrars"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 10, 2017. On May 11, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars requests for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On May 11 and 12, 2017, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses confirming that the Respondent Loyalton Invest is listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name and that the Respondent Andrew Scott is listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name and providing the 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 the Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 16, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 5, 2017. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents' default on June 6, 2017.
The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on June 15, 2017. 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
The Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Coatue Management L.L.C., a Delaware corporation.
The Complainant is the owner of the COATUE trademark registered in association with investment and financial services.
The Complainant has proven to be the owner of the COATUE trademark which enjoys protection through several registrations.
The Complainant is, inter alia, the owner of:
US Trademark No. 3,251,644, COATUE, filed on August 4, 2006 and registered June 12, 2007, for financial services, namely, investment management and investment advisory services, with a first use in commerce date of December 10, 1999 ;
US Trademark No. 4,678,384, COATUE (device), filed on June 9, 2014 and registered on January 27, 2015, for financial services, namely, investment management and investment advisory services, with a first use in commerce date of September, 2012;
The disputed domain names were registered by the Respondents on November 24, 2016 () and January 31, 2017 ().
The disputed domain names redirect Internet users to websites that, inter alia, offer third-party shares for sale. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the COATUE trademark, that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are under common control and therefore requests that the Complaints be heard in one case.
In this regard the Complainant asserts that the above said common control is shown by the following:
a) Both sites, "www." and "www.", contain some identical content, the type of which would not occur in the absence of common control. Specifically, the privacy policy for tracks the privacy policy for verbatim, and they both include references to the Coatue Invest website.
b) Both privacy policies contain peculiar phrasing that is not typical of English-language privacy policies;
c) The footers of the privacy policies used on the websites at and
both indicate that they are copyright "Coatue Management LLC," suggesting common ownership of the sites. B. Respondents
The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order for the Complainant to obtain a transfer of the disputed domain names, paragraphs 4(a)(i) – (iii) of the Policy require that the Complainant must demonstrate to the Panel that:
(i) The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) The disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Respondent Identity
According to the registration information verified by the Registrars, Loyalton Invest is listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name and Andrew Scott is listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name .
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are under common control and therefore requests the Complaints be heard in one case.
In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 3(c), the complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder. Although the names of the disputed domain name registrants are different, the Panel on the evidence available (including, for example, the fact that the footers of the privacy policies for and both indicate that they are copyright "Coatue Management LLC," suggesting common ownership of the sites) finds that the disputed domain names identified in the Complaint, if not registered by the same domain name holder, are at least under common control. The Panel, therefore, accepts the Complainant's request to address the disputed domain names in one case under the Rules, paragraphs 10(e) and 3(c). Accordingly, the Respondents will be collectively referred to as the "Respondent" hereinafter. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established registered rights in the COATUE trademark.
The disputed domain names and incorporate the Complainant's COATUE trademark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive terms "invest" and "management" to such trademark.
It is well established that the addition of a descriptive or a generic term to a trademark does not alter the underlying trademark or negate the confusing similarity.
Therefore this Panel finds the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to the trademark COATUE in which the Complainant has rights.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
This Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, and the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use or register any domain name incorporating the Complainant's trademark. The Respondent does not appear to engage in any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, nor any use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services for the reasons described in Section 6.D below. In addition, the Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the disputed domain names or by a similar name. Moreover, the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant's contentions, claiming any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that based on the record, the Complainant has demonstrated the Respondent's bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Based on the evidence put forward by the Complainant, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's trademark registrations and rights to the COATUE mark when it registered the disputed domain names.
The Respondent's knowledge of the COATUE mark is particularly obvious, given Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to offer inter alia unauthorized Snap Inc. shares for sale, giving the false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with the Complainant.
Indeed, it appears that the Respondent used the Complainant's marks to pretend to offer investments in companies with respect to which the Respondent has no legitimate ownership, right or interest in offering. These offerings are based on the activities of the Complainant, and seem to be designed to trick potential investors into a fraudulent scheme.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent knew of the Complainant's marks and intentionally intended to create an association with the Complainant and its business at the time of registration of the disputed domain names.
Moreover the Panel notes that Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain names is an attempt to profit from a false but implied association between its sites and the Complainant and its investment advisory business. When the added terms, as is this case, refer to specific services that are offered by the Complainant, they tend to increase the confusion rather than avoid it.
Therefore, the Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to intentionally attract consumers for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's websites falls under the provision expressly indicated by paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. 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 names and be transferred to the Complainant.
Fabrizio Bedarida
Sole Panelist
Date: June 26, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy