{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102463", "time_of_filling": "2019-05-07 11:07:10", "domain_names": [ "bitmex-airdrop.com", "bitmex-blog.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "HDR Global Trading Limited" ], "complainant_representative": "RiskIQ, Inc. c\/o Jonathan Matkowsky", "respondent": [ "1337 Services LLC" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nPROCEDURAL\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has clearly summarize the factual situation and the following are the more crucial information of its resumè:\r\n\r\nOn April 22, 2019, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent requesting transfer of the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's letter. \r\n\r\nBitMex respectfully requests of the Panel to name the Respondent in the caption of the Amended Complaint as follows: \"1337 Services LLC, Host Master\" because CAC's online platform technically only allows one to identify the organisation name--not the first and last name of the individual associated with the organisation that registered the disputed domain name as well, which is part of the Respondent's contact information confirmed by the registrar. An example of a recent UDRP case identifying Host Master with 1337 Services LLC is WPX Energy, Inc. v. Host Master, 1337 Services LLC, WIPO Case No. D2018-2438 (Dec. 13, 2018) (). \r\n\r\nIn both this case and in CAC Case No. 102447, the registrar verification responses disclosed that the disputed domain names, each redacted for privacy by Tucows in the public Whois, were registered by 1337 Services LLC, Host Master of Charlestown, Saint Kitts and Nevis. Cf. As stated in Registrar Verification Response received after the Complaint was submitted to the Provider in this case (collectively, hereinafter, \"Registrar Verification Responses\").\r\n\r\n1337 Services purchases domains for itself in its own name on behalf of its customers through \"Njalla.\". Respondent is the actual owner of the domains vis-à-vis he \"world\" for its customers, so while it markets it's not an ownership of proxy as found with other providers, its position vis-à-vis its customers is that it does not have actual ownership of the domain names in relation to its customers on whose behalf it is agreeing to register the domains to shield their identities. Id. Respondent used \"whois+bitmex-airdrop.com@njal.la\" to register and \"whois+bitmex-blog.com@njal.la\" to register . See Registrar Verification Responses. Beneath the redacted Whois with Tucows, both of the disputed domain names were registered to 1337 Services to shield its customer's true identity. Id. Paragraph 3.7.7.3 of the ICANN RAA states that as the registered name holder, it accepts liability for any use of the relevant names unless it timely discloses the contact information of any underlying beneficial registrant. Cf. The Hartman Media Company, LLC v. Host Master, 1337 Services LLC, WIPO Case No. D2018-1722 (Sept. 24, 2018) () (same Respondent) (deciding that the decision against Respondent should be construed to apply as well to the person(s) that caused the registration to be effected in the name of Respondent).\r\n\r\nThe Online portal only allows Complainant to list one of the Registrant e-mail addresses when inserting the Respondent’s known contact information. As a different email address was used to register , Complainant requests to insert \"whois+bitmex-blog.com@njal.la\" as the additional e-mail for Respondent in connection with that domain by way of this request into the section of the Amended Complaint requesting such contact information.\r\n\r\nAdditional known contact information for Respondent 1337 Services LLC includes messaging Responding through its online submission form available at https:\/\/njal.la\/ as well as by e-mail at .\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is subject to CAC Case No. 102447.. The Time of Filing of Case No. 102447 is 2019-05-15 14:46:35. Id. The Time of Filing of this case is 2019-05-07 11:07:10. Id. Accordingly, Case 102447 is the proceeding with a later Time of Filing. The disputed domain name has been included in the Amended Complaint in the instant Case. § 4(c) of CAC Supplemental Rule states, in pertinent part: \"Any proceeding(s) against a domain name holder with a later Time of Filing with respect to the same domain name(s) shall be suspended pending the outcome of the proceeding initiated by the Complaint with the earliest Time of Filing.\" Accordingly, Case 102447 will be suspended subject to, and in accordance with § 4(c) of CAC Supplemental Rule with respect to this Case. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant held that the domain names at issue are confusingly similar to its registered trademarks BITMEX.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent does not use the Domain Name in connection with any legitimate use but the disputed domain names redirects to a parking page. Also, according to the Complainant, the Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Name. Finally, the Complainant considers that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any pending or decided proceedings between the parties which relate to the disputed domain names.", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\n", "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 UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Massimo Cimoli" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-07-02 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is a Seychelles incorporated company and it is active in the financial services money transfer owning a cryptotrading platform since 2014. The disputed domain names were registered on April 22 2019 as far as is concerned and April the 8th 2019 as far as is concerned. Now the two domain names do not point to any active pages.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns several trademarks for BITMEX also in Canada Reg. No. 1880872 in class 36 with a use in Canada since 2016. The Complainant has indicated many other registrations in different jurisdictions. ", "decision_domains": { "BITMEX-AIRDROP.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "BITMEX-BLOG.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }