{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102443",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-05-06 13:45:21",
    "domain_names": [
        "bitmex.digital"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "HDR Global Trading Limited"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "RiskIQ, Inc. c\/o Jonathan Matkowsky",
    "respondent": [
        "Maria  Valentova"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is HDR Global Trading Limited, a Seychelles company, which established and operates BitMEX, a Bitcoin derivatives trading platform that the Complainant has shown to have been active since 2015. BitMEX was incorporated in 2014 and has since then attracted coverage in media interested in the financial and digital technology fields globally, especially the FinTech sector.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe person named as the Respondent is a private citizen in Russia. Attempts to contact the Respondent by the Complainant in a cease and desist letter prior to the present proceeding, and by the CAC after it was initiated, elicited no response, merely an indication of relay from the WHOIS privacy protected e-mail address to a Gmail address that itself did not disclose identifying personal information.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered under the aforementioned Russian citizen's name on 27 August 2018. It has since then been used in conjunction with a website whose address resolves by automatic redirection to www.binance.com's registration page. Binance.com is a major cryptocurrency trading exchange and is a competitor of the Complainant.  ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending or decided which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant cited earlier ADR case law as to the standard of proof that is applicable being the balance of probabilities and urged upon the Panel that it is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. \r\n\r\n\r\n(i) The disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant referred to its existing trademark registrations and mentioned that there are further pending ones. These served, it argued, to surmount the UDRP threshold of a Complainant having relevant rights, consistent also with previous decisions made in the Complainant's favour before earlier UDRP Panels. As its registered mark was fully incorporated within the disputed domain name, save the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain \".digital\", the Complainant claimed, referring again to earlier UDRP case law, that substantial identicality had been shown.\r\n\r\n\r\n(ii) The Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant here relied on earlier UDRP case-law to claim that its making out of a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests suffices and that this is afforded by the facts that the Respondent is not commonly known by the (stem of the) disputed domain name and that the Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant's trademark in the disputed domain name. Again relying on the line of UDRP jurisprudence it cites, the Complainant asserts that the burden is thus now upon the Respondent to come forward with evidence of its own showing its right(s) or legitimate interest, which it has failed to do. Rather, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name permanently and illegitimately to re-direct traffic to the Binance.com sign-up page.\r\n\r\n\r\n(iii) The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that it is very likely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant's distinctive mark in mind because it then misdirected traffic from the disputed domain name, whose stem is identical to the trademark, to a highly related commercial site in the same competitive sector as BITMEX. This serves to be disruptive to the Complainant, and, the Complainant continues, is being done for some commercial gain, on which it offered speculation. The Complainant asserted that the Respondent's intention is to attract internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with BITMEX as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the services at <www.binance.com>. Previous UDRP case law has already found redirection to competitors as being capable of being indicative of bad faith. Furthermore, the Complainant assigned importance to lack of a response by the Respondent to the Complainant's cease and desist letter, again referring to earlier UDRP decisions in this regard.\r\n\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).  ",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).  ",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).  ",
    "procedural_factors": "The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP were met and that there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision. ",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Kevin J. Madders"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-06-14 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant's trademark \"BITMEX\" (or in the form \"BitMEX\") is registered in several jurisdictions around the world in Class 36 of the Nice Classification Scheme. Class 36 protects trademarks associated with financial services. \r\n\r\n\r\nThe registrations include UK trademark 00003218498 registered on 2 June 2017, EU trademark 016462327 registered on 11 August 2017, and Hong Kong text trademark 304417902 registered on 9 April 2019. Evidence was also adduced of further registrations in Australia, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan and New Zealand, as well as of a trademark filing in India.\r\n\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Complainant is the registrant for the <bitmex.com> domain name on which it operates its online platform.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BITMEX.DIGITAL": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}