According to the provided information Complainant provides a peer-to-peer crypto-products trading platform offering leveraged contracts bought and sold in Bitcoin.
The disputed domain name, <bitmex.guide>, was registered on 5 July 2018.
The European Union trademark registration of Complainant has been issued prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
According to Complainant the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark since it fully incorporates the mark BITMEX in the disputed domain name. Also, where the disputed domain name differs from the mark only by the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD), “.guide”, the first element of the Policy has been satisfied as it does not change the overall impression.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant submits that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is a parked page from GoDaddy, including unrelated advertisement links to purchase domain names adjacent to the display of "bitmex.guide" in bold text above a message that the web page is parked FREE, courtesy of GoDaddy and a picture of a "GoDaddy Guide" to advertise its support services. Use of a domain name incorporating a distinctive mark to post parking and landing pages does not in and of itself confer rights or legitimate interests arising from a bona fide offering of goods or services. According to Complainant it appears likely that since registering the disputed domain name Respondent has not made any bona fide or fair use of the disputed domain name in connection with any products or services.
According to Complainant the disputed domain name is registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant has had a presence on the Internet from well before Respondent registered the disputed domain name. While Complainant was known to club members of the Rotary Club of Hong Kong, who are very prominent in the Hong Kong business world, as early as 2014, it had already appeared in the global media well before the disputed domain name was registered. Especially given there is no dictionary meaning for the mark BITMEX, it certainly seems likely that Respondent had searched top level domain extensions for the domain name "BitMex" before registering the disputed domain name. Moreover, given that the evidence of record shows that Respondent has otherwise passively held the disputed domain name for almost a year and made no preparations supported by relevant evidence for any actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name prior to receiving Complainant’s cease and desist order, it is only reasonable to conclude based on the totality of the circumstances that Respondent's actions demonstrate bad faith registration and use.
|