Complainant is Admiral Markets Group AS, Estonia, represented internally.
Respondent is Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 13, 2019. On December 13, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 13, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 19, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 8, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on January 10, 2019. The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on January 22, 2020. 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 Admiral Markets Group AS is a company registered in Estonia. According to the Complaint, “Admiral Markets Group AS investment firms operating under the joint Admiral Markets trademark are online trading service providers, offering investment services for trading with Forex and CFDs on indices, metals, energies, stocks, bonds and cryptocurrencies”. Complainant holds a registered trademark for ADMIRAL MARKETS in the European Union (registered September 21, 2013 after application on March 22, 2013, under registration No. 011680824) in connection with financial consulting services, securities brokerage services, and related activities. Complainant’s main website at “www.admiralmarkets.com” (a domain name it has owned since April 24, 2006) is used for its online trading activities. The website (which the Panel reviewed on its own; Complainant did not provide screenshots of the relevant web pages) states: “Since the foundation in 2001, the Admiral Markets Group has continually expanded its reach and today offers its services worldwide through its regulated trading companies, thus turning into a truly global organisation. At Admiral Markets, we are convinced that our presence in various geographical regions enables us to provide our clients with intelligent service and support wherever they choose to trade.” A screenshot of the website “www.admiralmarkets.com” as of September 15, 2009 (accessible to the Panel via the Wayback Machine at www.archive.org) shows that, at that time, Complainant was using that domain name in connection with its online trading business. The Domain Name was registered on October 5, 2009. Little is known about Respondent, since Respondent did not reply to the Complaint in this proceeding. On December 5, 2019, Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Registrar, stating in part: “According to the WHOIS ICANN inquiry, Media Elite Holdings Limited is the Registrar and Fundacion Privacy Services LTD is the Registrant Organization of the domain ‘www.admiralmarket.com’(Infringing Website), which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Admiral Markets Group AS has rights. Words ‘Admiral market’ in the domain name, which are used intentionally by the creator of the above-mentioned website, create a false opinion for the public that the website is related with the activity of Admiral Markets Group AS and/or its affiliates. Moreover, the website ‘www.admiralmarket.com’ redirects to random URL, sometimes to Optibet, sometimes to ‘http://ww.1.admiralmarket.com’ or ‘www.admiralmarket.com’. This further leads to false assumptions among the public which can result in serious financial losses, as it is possible to register via these websites and submit monetary deposits to third parties not related to Admiral Markets. We believe that the owner of the Infringing Website is committing a fraud by using the trademark of Admiral Markets.” The Registrar briefly responded that it was not in a position to take any action vis-à-vis the Domain Name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied all three elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the mark ADMIRAL MARKETS through registration demonstrated in the record. The Panel also finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to that mark; the omission of the “s” at the end of the trademark is an almost inconsequential difference. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements: (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your 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) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you [Respondent] are 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 concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Respondent has not bothered to come forward in this proceeding to explain why it registered the Domain Name or to refute any of Complainant’s allegations. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation”, are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad faith”: (i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or The Panel concludes that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of the above-quoted Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). The record here is thin, given Complainant’s failure to provide information regarding its use of its ADMIRAL MARKETS mark at the time of the Domain Name registration. As noted above, the mark was registered in 2013 and the Domain Name was registered four years earlier. Complainant should have annexed to the Complaint some basic evidence to show that it had been using ADMIRAL MARKETS as a trademark prior to the date of the Domain Name’s registration. The Panel, on its own initiative and within its province to do so, reviewed Complainant’s main website for some history, and used the Wayback Machine to confirm trademark use prior to the registration of the Domain Name. Respondent has not disputed Complainant’s plausible contention that Respondent has targeted Complainant’s trademark in order to lure Internet traffic to other websites, to the financial gain of Respondent. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 Domain Name Robert A. Badgley
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
(ii) that 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) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) that 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 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.
Sole Panelist
Date: January 23, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy