WIPO Domain Name Decision D2021-3040 for stripe-preipo.com, stripepreipo.com

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Stripe, Inc. v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / arnold etchison, abel secrets Case No. D2021-3040 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Stripe, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, United States.

The Respondents are Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland, / arnold etchison and abel secrets, China.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names , and are registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 15, 2021. On September 16, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On September 16, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrants and contact information for the disputed domain names, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 17, 2021, providing the registrants 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 September 23, 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on September 28, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 18, 2021. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on October 20, 2021.

The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on October 27, 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 Complainant is a technology company incorporated in the United States and a provider of online payment and business management services under the trade mark STRIPE (the “Trade Mark”), operating in more than 40 countries worldwide.

The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations for the Trade Mark in jurisdictions worldwide, including United States registration No. 4451679, with a registration date of December 17, 2013; and International registration No. 1255080, with a registration date of January 14, 2015.

B. Respondent

The Respondents are apparently individuals residing in Hong Kong, China, based on the information provided by the Registrar.

C. The Disputed Domain Names

The disputed domain names were both registered on the same date, May 3, 2021.

D. Use of the Disputed Domain Names

The disputed domain name has not been used for an active website.

The disputed domain name resolves to a website which copies the look and feel of the Complainant’s official website at “www.stripe.com”, features the Trade Mark as well as imagery and wording taken from the Complainant’s official website, and invites Internet users to register or sign up for unspecified services (the “Website”).

5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark; the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

B. Respondents

The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Consolidation of the Respondents

Section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) provides as follows:

“Where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario”.

The Complainant contends that there should be consolidation of the Respondents in the present proceeding, for the following reasons:

(i) the disputed domain names were registered on the same date and using the same Registrar;

(ii) the WhoIs records for the disputed domain names contain nearly identical contact information;

(iii) the disputed domain names are nearly identical. The only difference is that one contains a hyphen and the other does not;

(iv) the circumstances suggest that the Respondents are using fictitious names in the registration of the disputed domains;

(v) the only logical conclusion is that the disputed domain names are in fact controlled by the same person or entity; and

(vi) consolidation of the Respondents promotes the shared interests of the Parties in avoiding unnecessary duplication of time, effort, and expense, and generally furthers the fundamental objective of the Policy.

For the above reasons put forward by the Complainant, the Panel concludes that there are sufficient grounds to support the conclusion that the disputed domain names are subject to common control and that consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. The Respondents will hereinafter be referred to as the “Respondent”.

6.2. 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 names incorporate the entirety of the Trade Mark (see WIPO Overview, section 1.7) together with the words “pre ipo”. Further, the disputed domain name separates said words from the Trade Mark through the addition of a hyphen.

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 names are 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 names 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 names, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption.

The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain names or that the disputed domain names have been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain name has not been used; and the disputed domain name has been used in respect of the Website, which appears to be a scam website set up to fraudulently elicit personal details from Internet users. Moreover, the construction of the disputed domain names themselves is such to carry a risk of implied affiliation that cannot constitute fair use, since it effectively suggests sponsorship or ownership on behalf of the Complainant. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names; and there has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Given the notoriety of the Complainant and of its Trade Mark in the online payment and business management field; the distinctiveness of the Trade Mark; the fact the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark; the lack of any substantiated credible explanation from the Respondent; the use of a privacy service and likely fraudulent WhoIs information by the Respondent to mark its identity; and, in particular, in light of the manner of the use of the disputed domain name highlighted in Section 6.B. above, the Panel finds, in all the circumstances, that the requisite element of bad faith has been made out.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names have been registered and are 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 names , and be transferred to the Complainant.

Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 10, 2021

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy