The Complainant is Stripe, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes and Privacy service, Iceland / Alexander Nettheim, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 31, 2021. On March 31, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 2, 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 April 6, 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 April 9, 2021. 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 April 15, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 5, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 13, 2021. The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on May 28, 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 privately held company that provides online Internet payment software and services to large and small businesses. The Complainant provides services to companies in over 40 countries around the world including the United States. The Complainant owns the United States Patent and Trademark Registration No. 4451679, dated December 17, 2013, for the mark STRIPE (the “Mark”). The Complainant asserts numerous other International Trademark Registrations for the Mark. See e.g., Iceland Registration No. 1255080, dated January 14, 2015; European Union Registration No. 010112498, dated December 14, 2011; Canada Registration No. TMA843977, dated February 20, 2013; Australia Registration No. 1487267, dated April 24, 2012; and International Registration No. 125080, dated January 14, 2015. The Complainant owns the website at “www.stripe.com” which the Complainant utilizes to promote its services and the Mark. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 30, 2020. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark because the disputed domain name is composed by appending the dictionary term “stock” to the Complainant’s Mark. The Complainant asserts that the Complainant never authorized the Respondent to use the Mark, that the Respondent is not known by the Mark, and that the Respondent has never engaged in any bona fide commercial activity in connection with the Mark. The Complainant also asserts the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith as part of a scheme to redirect unsuspecting users to third-party brokerage websites. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and, (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark. The disputed domain name is composed by adding the dictionary term “stock” to the Mark. A domain name which wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7; Nomura International Plc / Nomura Holdings, Inc. contre Global Domain Privacy / Nicolas Decarli,WIPO Case No. D2016-1535 (transferring The generic Top-Level Domain of the disputed domain name, in this case “.com”, may be disregarded for the purposes of assessment under the first element, as it is viewed as a standard registration requirement. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. Monster Energy Company, A Delaware Corporation v. J.H.M. den Ouden,WIPO Case No. D2016-1759 (transferring The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has specifically disavowed providing the Respondent with permission to use the disputed domain name or the Mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has conducted any bona fide business under the disputed domain name or is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s website does not feature genuine services but is merely a conduit to brokerage firms (where some commercial gain could arise due to the redirection). The Respondent’s address provided to the Registrar is invalid, and the Respondent registered the disputed domain name behind a privacy shield. The Complainant has established a prima facie case in its favor, which shifts the burden of production on this point to the Respondent. The Respondent, however, has failed to come forth with any evidence showing any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint. The facts and circumstances presented to the Panel demonstrate that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Mandonna.com”,WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; seegenerally WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.3. The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Bad faith may be established by any one of the following scenarios: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the 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 the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location. The annexes to the Complaint establish that the disputed domain name was registered after the Complainant obtained its Mark and is being used to facilitate a redirection scheme designed to attract unsuspecting Internet users to the Respondent’s referral website. The disputed domain name suggests it will resolve to the Complainant’s website offering the Complainant’s stock for sale. The Complainant, however, is a private company that does not offer its stock for public sale, and the Respondent’s website is merely a pass-through gateway, presumably for a fee, to other companies purportedly offering brokerage services and “free stock.” Further, the Respondent’s website features the colors and design found on the Complainant’s website. Redirection schemes are explicit examples of bad faith registration and use. Arla Foods Amba and Mejeriforeningen Danish Dairy Board v. Mohammed Alkurdi,WIPO Case No. D2017-0391. Moreover, it is difficult to conceive of any use that the Respondent might make of the disputed domain name without the Complainant’s consent that would not involve bad faith. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmellows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Verner Panton Design v. Fontana di Luce Corp,WIPO Case No. D2012-1909 (where the reputation of a complainant in a given mark is significant and the mark bears strong similarities to the disputed domain name, the likelihood of confusion is such that bad faith may be inferred); DPDgroup International Services GmbH & Co. KG v. Wise One, Wilson TECH,WIPO Case No. D2021-0109 (transferring The Complainant has met its burden under 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 William F. Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: June 11, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy