{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103938",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-07-19 09:36:32",
    "domain_names": [
        "argominers.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Argo Blockchain PLC"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Fladgate LLP",
    "respondent": [
        "Ben Dominic"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:\r\n\r\nI. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to unregistered trade marks in which the Complainant has rights\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that it was incorporated in England and Wales on 5 December 2017, and that it has been using the name “Argo Blockchain PLC” since 22 December 2017. The Complainant’s business is the provision of technology, infrastructure and expertise to allow blockchain networks to operate efficiently.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant informs that it has traded under the names “Argo”, “Argo Blockchain” and “Argo Blockchain PLC” (the AB Names) since its establishment, and that the use of such names with customers, strategic partners and investors has generated significant goodwill and reputation in the AB Names in the United Kingdom and throughout the world. The Complainant also refers to its own website www.argoblockchain.com (the Complainant’s website) from which further evidence of the use of the AB Names can be found.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <argominers.com> was registered on 12 May 2020.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant avers that it has utilised and traded under the trade name and unregistered trade marks “Argo Blockchain” or “Argo” since December 2017 as further detailed on the Complainant’s website. The Complainant contends that it has attracted significant reputation and goodwill by virtue of its use of the AB Names, as follows:\r\n\r\n• The Complainant is a public limited company listed on the London Stock Exchange;\r\n\r\n• The Complainant’s mining revenue for the month of May 2021 amounted to GBP 5.51 million;\r\n\r\n• The Complainant has executed various strategic and investment agreements and partnerships in the ambit of cryptocurrency industry, which have garnered the participation of many stakeholders in North America; and\r\n\r\n• The Complainant’s financial results for the year ended 31 December 2020 showed that the Complainant’s revenue increased by 120% to GBP 19m; 85% increase in annual production of bitcoins; and cash and digital assets held as at 31 December 2020 amounting to GBP 6.7m.\r\n\r\n\r\nIn view of the above facts, the Complainant alleges that it has attracted significant reputation, investment and goodwill in relation to its use of the unregistered trade marks “Argo” and “Argo Blockchain” in the United Kingdom, the European Union, and the United States.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant concludes that it has rights under the English law of passing-off to prevent the use of the AB Names where such use misappropriates its goodwill and leads to confusion. The Complainant further contends that, where such use leads to damage to the Complainant, the Complainant is entitled under English law to recover damages for its losses.\r\n\r\nLastly, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name incorporates a key part of the AB Names, namely “Argo”, under which the Complainant has significant goodwill. Furthermore, the Complainant avers that the disputed domain name contains a reference to “miners” which is linked to the activity of cryptocurrency mining, namely, the core business of the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is a direct reference to a trade name of the Complainant, and the direct and core business of the Complainant.\r\n\r\n\r\nII. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent has not demonstrated any legitimate use of the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or service. The Complainant further argues that the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organisation) is not known by the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of it. On the contrary, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name with a view to attracting, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website to which the disputed domain name resolves (the Respondent’s website), by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s unregistered trade marks and the AB Names by implying an affiliation or endorsement of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nIn view of the above factors, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\nIII. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was first registered on 12 May 2020, over two years after the Complainant incorporated its company and adopted the official company name of “Argo Blockchain PLC”, and after the Complainant had begun to build significant goodwill and reputation in the investment and cryptocurrency mining sectors. The Complainant is a public listed company and a simple search engine search brings up significant results regarding the existence and activities of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further asserts that the use of the registrar’s privacy or proxy service to mask the identity by the Respondent is an indication that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.\r\n\r\nWith regard to the use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Complainant avers that, since its registration, the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith because the details of the Complainant are being intentionally used on the Respondent’s website, in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's name, service marks, and other property of the Complainant.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant provides evidence found on Respondent’s website which illustrates the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, as follows:\r\n\r\n• The main webpage of the Respondent’s website incorporates an embedded YouTube video, over which the Complainant claims argues ownership, giving a tour of the Complainant’s physical facilities in Quebec;\r\n\r\n• The “About Us” section of the Respondent’s website shows that the Respondent is claiming to be the Complainant given the references to “Argo Blockchain PLC” and its incorporation date being December 2017;\r\n\r\n• The Respondent’s website displays the Complainant’s certificate of incorporation under the “About Us” section, thereby passing it off as the Respondent’s own company incorporation certificate, despite there being no connection between the Complainant and the Respondent whatsoever;\r\n\r\n• The Respondent’s website also contains a hyperlink titled “Click to verify” next to the Complainant’s certificate of incorporation, which redirects users to the Complainant’s registration details on the Companies House website; and\r\n\r\n• The “Help Centre” section of the Respondent’s website is also a matter of concern as it contains further references to the Complainant, which suggests an associated with the disputed domain name, including another re-direction to the Complainant’s registration details on the Companies House website. The Complainant argues that, if existing or potential clients were to believe there is an association between the Complainant and the disputed domain name, the Complainant’s business and reputation will suffer and the brand it has been trying to build will be tarnished.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant concludes that the re-direction to the Companies House website which displays the Complainant’s own details, and the use of the Complainant’s incorporation certificate on the various sections of the Respondent’s website, show ill will and malice towards the Complainant and flagrant use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant further concludes that the Respondent is doing this purely as an attempt to imply a connection between the Complainant and the Respondent in order to attract investment (legitimate or not) for the Respondent.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Complainant informs that its solicitors wrote to the Respondent on 15 June 2021 setting out the above facts and asking the Respondent to (i) cease use of the AB Names and other property owned by the Complainant, (ii) cease providing links to details of the Complainant’s registered company, and (iii) to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant. The Complainant additionally informs that no response was received to its letter.\r\n\r\nOn these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant Response has been filed.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to an unregistered trade 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": [
        "Dr Gustavo Moser"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-08-18 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant relies on unregistered trade mark rights in the terms “Argo Blockchain” or “Argo”, the particulars of which are further detailed and discussed under the factual background section below.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ARGOMINERS.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}