Complainant is IMC Trading B.V., Netherlands, represented by Merkenbureau Knijff & Partners B.V., Netherlands.
Respondent is Easy FX, Easy FX Solutions, Vanuatu. 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 14, 2020. On December 14, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 16, 2020, 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 January 20, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 9, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on February 18, 2021. The Center appointed Gabriel F. Leonardos as the sole panelist in this matter on March 8, 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 Complainant, IMC Trading B.V., is one of the world’s most active proprietary trading firm and market maker for various financial instruments listed on exchanges throughout the world. The company was founded in 1989 by two traders working on the floor of the Amsterdam Equity Options Exchange. Today, IMC Trading B.V. employs over 800 people and owns offices in Amsterdam, Chicago, Sydney and Hong Kong, China. In 30 years, the company has grown internationally, trading primarily on the basis of data and algorithms, and using its execution platform to provide liquidity to financial markets globally. In light of the above, considering the valuable goodwill and reputation incorporated by IMC TRADING, Complainant has filed International trademarks registrations – for services related to financial affair,investment services, business and capital management and wealth / asset management - in order to protect its investments and rights over the financial services that the company provides, for example: Trademark Owner Registration No. Registration Date IMC IMC Trading B.V. 929842 July 26, 2007 IMC TRADING IMC Trading B.V. 1488678 July 23, 2019 IMC FINANCIAL MARKET & ASSET MANAGEMENT IMC Trading B.V. 1018983 September 23, 2009 IMC () IMC Trading B.V. 1491138 July 23, 2019 It is also important to note that Complainant is the owner of the trade name IMC TRADING B.V. since October 5, 1990, and of its official domain name At last, Complainant informed that, although Respondent is the holder of the disputed domain name Complainant submits that the disputed domain name In addition, Complainant affirms that the expression “IMCTRADES” - fully incorporated in the disputed domain name Complainant also says that the disputed domain name is actively used to offer financial and trade services, which are very similar to the services offered by Complainant. Thus, Complainant states that consumers, when visiting the website hosted by the disputed domain name Considering this scenario, Complainant believes that the similarities mentioned hereto are persuading its consumers to wrongly believe that the website under the disputed domain name has any association with IMC TRADING B.V., what is not true, fulfilling paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy and paragraph 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1) of the Rules. Furthermore, Complainant affirms that KBS Capital Markets, which operates the disputed domain name Moreover, Complainant affirms that the page hosted by the disputed domain name Complainant also states that there are various sources indicating that the disputed domain name ln conclusion, Complainant alleges that Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, consumers to its website, creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant and its trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent's website, which constitutes registration and use in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Thus, Complainant sustains that paragraph 4(a)(iii) and 4(b) of the Policy and paragraph (b)(ix)(3) of the Rules would have been fulfilled. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed in an UDRP complaint, complainants must demonstrate that all the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, as following: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) 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 burden of proving these elements is upon Complainant. Respondent had 20 days to submit a response in accordance with paragraph 5(a) of the Rules and failed to do so. Paragraph 5(f) of the Rules establishes that if a respondent does not respond to the Complaint, the Panel’s decision shall be based upon the Complaint. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant showed that it owns International trademark registrations for IMC (registration number 929842) and IMC TRADING (registration number 1488678) and that its influence and fame in the financial segment predate the registration of the disputed domain name by Respondent. The Panel finds that, in the present case, the disputed domain name Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark and that the requirements of the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The consensus view of UDRP panels on the burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is summarized in section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) as follows: “[w]hile the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of ‘proving a negative’, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.” In this case, noting the facts and contentions listed above, the Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, so the burden of production shifts to Respondent. As Respondent has not replied to Complainant’s contentions, that burden has not been discharged, and the Panel has considered Complainant’s prima facie case to be sufficient to demonstrate that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii)). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists a number of circumstances that, without limitation, are deemed evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Those circumstances include: “(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.” Firstly, the Panel finds that it is highly unlikely that Respondent had no knowledge of Complainant’s rights to the trademark IMC TRADING at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, especially because Complainant is a well-know firm in the financial market, which is a restrict and specific shield. Thus, by a quick search at search engine of the word “imc trade”, the first result shown is IMC Trading B.V.’s website, followed by a Wikipedia page on the Complainant’s business. Besides that the Complainant is the owner of the trade name IMC TRADING B.V. since October 5, 1990, and of its official domain name The evidences also show that Respondent was likely trying to promote its business by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its services. For the Panel, an evidence of bad faith is the fact that the page hosted by the disputed domain name The Panel also notes that there are various sources – including governmental ones - indicating that the disputed domain name Lastly, in conjunction with all the abovementioned, the fact that Respondent did not present any response to the Complaint reinforces Panel’s conclusion that Respondent is acting in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. As such, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 name Gabriel F. Leonardos
(word mark)
(word mark)
()
Sole Panelist
Date: March 22, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy