WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Stripe Inc. v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0148960058 / Jason Castner, Aquatic Explorations

Case No. D2018-0310

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Stripe Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America (“United States”), represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”).

The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0148960058 of Toronto, Ontario, Canada / Jason Castner, Aquatic Explorations of Los Alamitos, California, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <stripe.support> is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 12, 2018. On February 12, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 12, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 13, 2018, providing the registrant 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 February 14, 2018.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 27, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 19, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 21, 2018.

The Center appointed Kimberley Chen Nobles as the sole panelist in this matter on March 27, 2018. 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

The Complainant was founded in late 2010 and is now a leader in the field of online payments. The Complainant offers its financial services to clients of all sizes, ranging from private individuals to multi-thousand employee corporations. The Complainant has a presence in 25 countries, including the United States, France, United Kingdom, and Japan.

The Complainant is the owner of multiple trademark registrations for the mark STRIPE:

The disputed domain name was registered on August 14, 2017. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name previously redirected to a website at “www.aquaticexplorations.com” containing information on swimming lessons. The Complainant has provided further evidence that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a fraudulent email scheme. At the time of this decision, the disputed domain name does not resolve to any website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s STRIPE trademarks. The Complainant has rights in the STRIPE trademarks by virtue of its trademark registrations. When comparing the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s trademark, the comparison should be made to the second-level portion of the disputed domain name only. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.support” should not be considered. The disputed domain name consists entirely of the STRIPE trademark. This indicates that the Respondent intended the disputed domain name to be identical to the Complainant’s trademark.

The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant. The Complainant has not given the Respondent permission to use the Complainant’s trademarks in any manner, including in domain names. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WhoIs data for the disputed domain name identifies the registrant as “Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0148960058”, indicating that the Respondent is using privacy services and is therefore unable to claim any resemblance to the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, or legitimate, noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name.

Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant’s STRIPE trademarks are well known and have been in use since 2010, well before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. By registering a domain name that incorporates the Complainant’s STRIPE trademark in its entirety, the Respondent has created a domain name identical to the Complainant’s mark and to the Complainant’s own main domain name <stripe.com>. The STRIPE trademark is so associated with the Complainant that the Respondent’s use of it strongly implies bad faith. At the time of registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent knew, or at least should have known, of the existence of the Complainant’s trademarks and that registration of domain names containing well-known trademarks constitutes bad faith per se.

Bad faith use can be further established by evidence demonstrating that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to conduct phishing attacks by using the disputed domain name to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website, products or services. Further, at the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to “www.aquaticexplorations.com”, a website with no connection to the STRIPE trademark.

The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

The Policy provides for transfer or cancellation of the disputed domain name if the Complainant establishes each of the following elements set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:

(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has rights in the STRIPE trademark. The Complainant has established that it is the owner of trademark registrations of the STRIPE trademark in many jurisdictions.

The disputed domain name comprises the element “stripe” and the gTLD “.support”. As a technical part of a domain name, the “.support” gTLD may be disregarded in determining confusing similarity. Alienware Corp. v. Truther, WIPO Case No. DCO2012-0027; Belo Corp. v. George Latimer, WIPO Case No. D2002-0329. The Complainant’s STRIPE mark remains the sole part of the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by showing any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation:

(i) The Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute; or

(ii) The Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark 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 trademark or service mark at issue.

There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends, and the Respondent does not deny, that the Complainant never authorized the Respondent to use its STRIPE trademark or to register any domain name incorporating that trademark. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way.

The Respondent is not using, nor is there evidence that the Respondent has made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. The redirection of the disputed domain name to “www.aquaticexplorations.com”, a website offering swimming lessons, appears to be an attempt to mask the Respondent’s bad faith use of the disputed domain name. In fact, the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to conduct phishing attacks that directly interfere with Complainant’s services and which could be confused with the Complainant’s website and services. This is not a bona fide offering.

The Respondent is not making any noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. To the contrary, the evidence in the record indicates that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name for illegitimate gain by seeking to create an impression of an association with the Complainant through a fraudulent email scheme.

Accordingly, the record indicates that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith:

(i) Circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or has acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or

(ii) The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) By using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such website or location or of a product or service on such website or location.

The present case falls within that contemplated by paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent undoubtedly was aware of the Complainant and its STRIPE mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and that such registration was in bad faith. The Complainant and its STRIPE mark are widely known and registered in various jurisdictions throughout the world. The Respondent must have had the Complainant’s trademark in mind when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, as evidenced by the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website offering services that compete with those of the Complainant. Moreover, the Respondent purports to be a member of “The Stripe team” in a phishing email claiming to offer financial payment, with the transaction to be handled using the Complainant’s services. The Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant’s mark, being fully aware of the Complainant’s rights in the mark, without any rights or legitimate interests in doing so is registration in bad faith. See, e.g., Research In Motion Limited v. Privacy Locked LLC/Nat Collicot, WIPO Case No. D2009-0320; The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian, WIPO Case No. D2009-0113.

The Respondent also used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant has submitted evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to conduct “phishing” attacks. “Phishing” is the fraudulent practice of sending emails purporting to be from reputable sources in order to induce individuals to reveal personal information, such as passwords and credit card numbers. The Respondent has not responded to this claim. Further, at the time of writing this decision, the disputed domain name does not resolve to any website. By using the disputed domain name to conduct “phishing” attacks, the Respondent is clearly using the disputed domain name in bad faith. BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd v. Domains By Proxy LLC / Douglass Johnson, WIPO Case No. D2016-0364. “[T]he use of an email address associated with the disputed domain name, to send a phishing email for the purposes of dishonest activity is in itself evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.”

For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name is 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 name <stripe.support> be transferred to the Complainant.

Kimberley Chen Nobles
Sole Panelist
Date: April 5, 2018