Complainant is Stripe, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, United States.
Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes and Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Andrew C. Lopes, 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 May 21, 2021. On May 25, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 25, 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 Complainant on May 31, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 4, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 7, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 27, 2021. Respondent sent an informal communication to the Center on June 9, 2021. Respondent did not file a formal response to Complainant’s contentions. The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on July 5, 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 is a technology and e-commerce company based in the United States. Since at least 2011, Complainant has offered financial and payment-processing services under it STRIPE mark, which Complainant markets via its website located at “www.stripe.com”. Complainant has several registered trademarks for its STRIPE mark globally. These include United States Registration No. 4,451,679 (registered December 17, 2013), and Icelandic Registration No. 1255080 (registered January 14, 2015). The disputed domain name Complainant contends that the (i) disputed domain name In particular, Complainant contends that it has established rights in its STRIPE name and mark in the field of financial and payment-processing services. Complainant contends that Respondent has merely added the dictionary terms “buy” and “verified” which Complainant contends are “common industry terms” intended to confuse consumers into believing that Respondent’s website is officially endorsed by Complainant. Complainant further contends that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to set up a website meant to lure in customers looking for Complainant and its financial and payment-processing services, likely in a phishing scheme. Complainant further contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name registration or use of the disputed domain name. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in setting up a website, when Respondent clearly knew of Complainant’s rights. B. Respondent Respondent sent an email communication to the Center, stating, as follows: “I want to keep THIS domain/ Please let me know/ I am really worried/ Let me know.” Respondent did not file a reply to Complainant’s contentions in this proceeding. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar This Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain name Numerous UDRP panels have agreed that supplementing or modifying a trademark with generic or descriptive words does not make a domain name any less “identical or confusingly similar” for purposes of satisfying this first prong of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, for example, Inter Ikea Systems B.V. v. Polanski,WIPO Case No. D2000-1614 (transferring The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Policy provides some guidance to respondents on how to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue in a UDRP dispute. For example, paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives examples that might show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. These examples include: (i) use of the domain name “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services”; (ii) demonstration that Respondent has been “commonly known by the domain name”; or (iii) “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”. Respondent did not submit a reply to Complainant’s contentions, but merely expressed a desire to maintain ownership of the registration for the disputed domain name. Although the Panel is aware that Complainant’s asserted mark STRIPE is a dictionary term, Respondent did not allege or otherwise provide any information that would support a finding that Respondent has rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. To the contrary, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website mimicking Complainant’s website. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, which Respondent has not rebutted. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith. For example, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy states that bad faith can be shown where “by using the domain name [respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [respondent’s] web site 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 [respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the] web site or location”. As noted in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, Respondent has set up a URL associated with the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that appears to mimic an official website of Complainant, and which attempts to confuse consumers by highlighting “Buy a Stripe Verified Account”, and inviting prospective consumers to click links through which they may be asked to provide further information. Respondent is thus trading on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademarks to attract Internet users, presumably for Respondent’s own commercial gain. Although Respondent submitted a communication expressing a desire to maintain control of the disputed domain name, Respondent provided no response to Complainant’s contentions in this proceeding. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For all 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 Lorelei Ritchie
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 16, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy