The Complainant is Admirals Group AS, Estonia, internally represented.
The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Iceland / tiego caldejon, admiral network, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 27, 2021. On July 27, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 28, 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 August 1, 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 amendments to the Complaint on August 2, 2021.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendments to 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 2, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 22, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 13, 2021.
The Center appointed Anne-Virginie La Spada as the sole panelist in this matter on September 20, 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 BackgroundThe Complainant is an Estonian investment firm, which provides online trading services, investment services for trading with Forex, and Contract for differences (“CFDs”) on indices, metals, energies, stocks, bonds, and cryptocurrencies.
The Complainant operates a website accessible under the domain name
The Complainant owns several other domain names including
The Complainant is the owner of several registrations for ADMIRAL MARKETS as a semi-figurative trademark in a number of countries worldwide, and in particular of:
- International registration no. 1177229, registered on July 11, 2013 in relation to services of classes 35, 36, and 41;
- European Union Trade Mark registration no. 011680824, registered on September 21, 2013 in relation to services of classes 35, 36, and 41.
The disputed domain name
As evidenced in the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website offering a financial trading platform and reproducing the term ADMIRAL in association with a logo identical to the Complainant’s logo. The license number of the Complainant issued by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission was also mentioned on such website.
The Complainant sent cease-and-desist letters by email to the Respondent on May 4, 2021 and June 29, 2021. The Respondent did not reply.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark ADMIRAL MARKETS. Even if the disputed domain name does not reproduce the trademark ADMIRAL MARKETS in its entirety, there is a high probability that potential clients would create an account assuming that they are using the Admiral Markets platform.
The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Finally, according to the Complainant, the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is acting knowingly and intentionally as it is unlawfully using and referring to its name and license number. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent intends to mislead consumers into thinking that it is an authorized entity offering a legitimate product. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has tarnished its trademarks.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsAccording to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant must assert and prove each of the following:
(i) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name registered by the respondent has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant owns several trademark registrations for the semi-figurative trademark ADMIRAL MARKETS.
The dominant element of the Complainant’s trademark is “admiral”. The disputed domain name reproduces such dominant element of the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with no alteration. The disputed domain name combines the term “admiral” with the term “fx”, which is the common abbreviation in the field of trading for “Foreign Exchange Market” or “Forex”.
UDPR panels consider that where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the 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 of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy (see section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0)).
In the present case, the main element “admiral” of the trademark ADMIRAL MARKETS is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. The mere addition of the abbreviation “fx” does not change the overall impression produced by the disputed domain name and does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark (See for example DPDgroup International Services GmbH & Co. KG v. Whois Privacy Protection Foundation / Aurelius Mark,WIPO Case No. D2019-3141).
UDRP panels also accept that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), such as “.net”, may be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusing similar to a trademark (see section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
The Complainant has thus satisfied the conditions set forth in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsBased on the information submitted by the Complainant, the Respondent does not appear to have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, nor has the Complainant granted to the Respondent any authorization to use the disputed domain name. Moreover, there is no evidence indicating that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The Respondent does not appear to have operated any bona fide or legitimate business under the disputed domain name and is not making a noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Instead, the disputed domain name used to resolve to a website offering an online financial trading platform under the name “ADMIRALFX” and using the license number of the Complainant.
In addition, the use of the disputed domain name in connection to a website offering a financial trading platform and reproducing the main element of the Complainant’s trademark in association with a logo identical to the Complainant’s logo supports the apparent lack of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, UDRP panels consider that even where a domain name consists of a trademark plus an additional term (at the second- or top-level), such composition cannot constitute fair use if it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner (see section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
Finally, the Respondent did not file a Response to the Complaint. The Panel may draw from the lack of a Response the inferences that it considers appropriate, according to the Rules, paragraph 14(b).
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent’s silence corroborates such prima facie case.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the Complainant has satisfied the condition set out in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithGiven the fact that the trademark ADMIRAL MARKETS of the Complainant is distinctive and has been widely used before the registration of the disputed domain name, and the fact that the Respondent used the Complainant’s logo, the Panel finds it unlikely that the disputed domain name was chosen independently without reference to the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel therefore accepts that the Respondent was aware of the existence of the Complainant and of its ADMIRAL MARKETS trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent used the disputed domain name to redirect to a website offering a financial trading platform, i.e. services competing with the Complainant’s services. In addition, not only the main element of the Complainant’s name and trademark is reproduced on this website but also misleading content such as the Complainant’s affiliate license number.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. Such behavior amounts to use in bad faith according to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy (see section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
For the reasons set out above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, and that the Complainant has satisfied the condition set forth in paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. DecisionFor 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
Anne-Virginie La Spada
Sole Panelist
Date: October 4, 2021