The Complainant is Advanced New Technologies Co., Ltd., Cayman Islands, United Kingdom, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Adam Price, Australia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 13, 2020. On November 13, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 26, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 30, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 30, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 20, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 25, 2020. The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on January 20, 2021. 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 is a financial technology company using the mark ANTFIN. It has registrations for that mark in various jurisdictions around the world, including Australian Reg. No. 2064767, registered on January 24, 2020. The disputed domain name was registered on July 23, 2020. The Complainant provides evidence that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that attempts to pass off as the Complainant and to fool unsuspecting users into divulging their personal information when purportedly signing up for access to the Complainant’s initial public offering (“IPO”). The Respondent has not countered these assertions. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, namely, that: (i) the disputed domain name is 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 name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. See, Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. Voguechen,WIPO Case No. D2014-0657. The Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the ANTFIN mark by providing evidence of its numerous trademark registrations. The disputed domain name incorporates the ANTFIN mark in its entirety. This is sufficient for showing confusing similarity under the Policy. The presence of the letters “IPO” in the disputed domain name does not prevent the finding of confusing similarity. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established this first element under the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent. On this point, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has, without the authorization of the Complainant, used the disputed domain name to establish a bogus website that imitates the Complainant and seeks to deceive users into submitting their personal information under false pretenses. The Respondent has not introduced any of its own evidence to contradict these assertions. The Panel finds that the Respondent’s activity – as described by the Complainant and supported by the record – does not rise to the level of a bona fide use of the disputed domain name, nor does it meet any of the other criteria set out in the Policy that could show the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has established, prima facie, that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Respondent has not come forth with evidence to rebut that showing. The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Policy requires a complainant to establish that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy describes several non-exhaustive circumstances demonstrating a respondent’s bad faith use and registration. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, a panel may find bad faith when a respondent “[uses] the domain name to intentionally attempt 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 a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location”. The Panel finds, based on the available record, that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Establishing a website to essentially misrepresent its operator as the Complainant, and using the disputed domain name that incorporates the Complainant’s mark for purposes of gathering user information, is a clear example of bad faith registration and use under 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 name Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: February 3, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy