The Complainants are Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (“CME”) and CME Group Inc. (“CME Group”), United States of America (“United States”), represented by Norvell IP llc, United States.
The Respondent is 硕胡 (Hu Shuo), China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) in English on March 11, 2021. On March 11, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 12, 2021, 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 March 23, 2021 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 March 26, 2021. On March 23, 2021, the Center transmitted an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding on March 26, 2021. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding. 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 in English and Chinse, and the proceeding commenced on March 30, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 19, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 23, 2021. The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on May 7, 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 A. Complainant The Complainants are companies incorporated in the State of Delaware in the United States. The Complainant CME Group one of the world’s largest and most diverse financial exchanges, with a history dating back to 1848. CME Group offers futures and options in all major asset classes, such as metals, commodities, foreign exchange, energy, and other products through five exchanges: CME or Chicago Mercantile Exchange, CBOT or Chicago Board of Trade, COMEX or Commodity Exchange, and NYMEX or New York Mercantile Exchange. The Complainant Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) is one of the world’s leading financial institutions, and is owned by the CME Group. Originally founded in 1898, CME began using the CME name in 1919. The Complainants operate globally, with offices in the United States, Canada, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Singapore, Hong Kong, China, South Korea, India, and Japan. The Complainant CME is the owner of numerous registrations for and comprising the trade mark CME (the “Trade Mark”) in jurisdictions worldwide, including United States registration No. 1,085,681 for the Trade Mark, with a registration date of February 14, 1978. B. Respondent The Respondent is apparently an individual resident in China. C. The Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name was registered on November 29, 2020. D. Use of the Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name is resolved to an English language website containing the Trade Mark and purporting to offer cryptocurrency trading services, and inviting web users to register and download an application to be used for cryptocurrency trading (the “Website”). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and 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 6.1. Substantive Elements of the Policy The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration. The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Trade Mark (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7) together with the number “668”. Where a relevant trade mark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name: (i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed 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 disputed domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or (iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue. The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Mark. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption. The Respondent has failed to show that he has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the Respondent has made use of the disputed domain name in respect of the Website, in order to pass off the Website as a website of the Complainants, and fraudulently lure Internet users into creating an account and providing personal information and payment to an unauthorised source that is not associated with the Complainants. There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. In all the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In light of the manner of the use of the disputed domain name highlighted in Section 6.2.B. above, the Panel finds that the Respondent knew about the Trade Mark of the Complainants when registering the disputed domain name, and registered and used the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainants and fraudulently lure Internet users into providing sensitive information. Therefore, the requisite element of bad faith has been made out. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 21, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy