The Complainant is CTC Innovations, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg, United States.
The Respondent is On behalf of ctcfinancialgroup.com owner, Whois Privacy Service, United States / dsadsa dasda, Afghanistan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 28, 2021 regarding the disputed domain names 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 July 12, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 1, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 3, 2021. The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on August 19, 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 corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, United States with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois, United States. It is a provider of financial services. The Complainant is the proprietor of various trademark registrations for the mark CTC, including United States trademark number 4040810 for the word mark CTC, registered on October 18, 2011, for goods and services including financial services in International Class 36. The Complainant is the owner of similar registrations for the mark CTC in various other jurisdictions including the United Kingdom, the European Union, and China. The disputed domain name was registered on March 25, 2021. The disputed domain name does not appear to have resolved to any active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits that its trademark CTC is widely known in connection with financial services. It states that it has traded under that name and mark, which is an abbreviation for Chicago Trading Company, since at least 2000. It states that is a proprietary trading firm with offices in Chicago, New York, London, and Hong Kong, China. The Complainant exhibits examples of its social media pages making reference to its business and profile. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark CTC. It contends that the disputed domain name comprises that mark with the addition of the words “financial group” which do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. It contends that the addition of those words in fact increases the likelihood of confusion as they relate to the Complainant’s own area of business. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It states that it has never licensed or authorized the Respondent to use its CTC trademark, that the Respondent has not been known by that name, and that the Respondent is making neither bona fide commercial use nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. It contends that, owing to the notoriety of the Complainant’s trademark CTC and its association with financial services, it is implausible that the Respondent could have registered it for any reason other than to exploit the Complainant’s goodwill. It states that the Respondent’s failure as yet to use the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith and merely emphasizes that the disputed domain name is not used in connection with any legitimate business. The Complainant exhibits correspondence with the Registrar prior to the commencement of this proceeding in which the Registrar declined to provide the Respondent’s contact details. The Complainant contends that the Respondent’s contact details as now disclosed are obviously false. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registered trademark rights for the mark CTC. The disputed domain name comprises that mark in full together with the dictionary words “financial group” which do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not filed a Response in this proceeding and has not submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that its mark CTC is widely known in the United States and elsewhere in connection with financial services. The disputed domain name combines the mark CTC with the words “financial group” and the Respondent has neither used the disputed domain name nor provided any explanation for its registration of that name. In the circumstances, the Panel accepts, on the balance of probabilities, the Complainant’s submission that the Respondent is likely to have registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark and business in mind and with the intention of exploiting the Complainant’s goodwill by virtue of confusion between the disputed domain name and that trademark. The Panel also notes that the contact details provided by the Respondent to the Registrar include the following: First Name: dsadsa Plainly these details are nonsense and are a strong indication to the Panel of bad faith intent on the Respondent’s part. While the disputed domain name has been passively held, this does not prevent a finding of bad faith where such a finding is apparent from all the circumstances of the case (see e.g. Telstra Corp, Inc. v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003). In all the circumstances of this case, the Panel 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, Steven A. Maier
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Last Name: dasda
Address 1: dsadas dsadas
City: dsadsa
Sole Panelist
Date: September 2, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy