WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Crosslink Capital, Inc. v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Ahmed Hamzat

Case No. D2021-2839

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Crosslink Capital, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Shartsis Friese LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Ahmed Hamzat, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <crosslinkcapitals.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 27, 2021. On August 30, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On August 30, 2021, 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 August 31, 2021 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 September 2, 2021.

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 September 6, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 26, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 27, 2021.

The Center appointed Lynda M. Braun as the sole panelist in this matter on October 6, 2021. 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

Founded in 1999 in Menlo Park, California, the Complainant is a leading venture capital firm with a primary focus on technology-based services. The Complainant provides a variety of financial and investment services, acting as the investment adviser to limited partnerships and unit trusts that invest substantially all of their assets in a combination of both private and public companies.

The Complainant is the owner of the CROSSLINK CAPITAL trademark registration in the United States as follows: CROSSLINK CAPITAL, United States Trademark Registration No. 2,684,061, registered on February 4, 2003¹ for venture capital funding, management and consulting services to start-up, emerging, and growth companies in International Class 36 (hereinafter referred to as the “CROSSLINK CAPITAL Mark”).

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on February 4, 2019, a decade after the Complainant first used the CROSSLINK CAPITAL Mark. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website at “www.crosslinkcapitals.com” that offers cryptocurrency investment services.

The Complainant maintains that it sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent on August 2, 2021, demanding that the Respondent cease and desist from any and all use of the Disputed Domain Name, but never received a response.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The following are the Complainant’s contentions:

- the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark;

- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name;

- the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith; and

- the Complainant seeks the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent to the Complainant in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In order for the Complainant to prevail and have the Disputed Domain Name transferred to the Complainant, the Complainant must prove the following (Policy, paragraphs 4(a)):

(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

This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. The Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CROSSLINK CAPITAL Mark.

It is uncontroverted that the Complainant has established rights in the CROSSLINK CAPITAL Mark based on its years of use as well as its registered trademark for the CROSSLINK CAPITAL Mark in the United States, where the Respondent purportedly resides. The general consensus is that “registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive”. See CWI, Inc. v. Domain Administrator c/o Dynadot, WIPO Case No. D2015-1734. The Respondent has not rebutted this presumption, and therefore the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the CROSSLINK CAPITAL Mark.

The Disputed Domain Name consists of the CROSSLINK CAPITAL Mark in its entirety, although misspelled by only adding one letter – the letter “s” in “capital”, and then followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. Such a minor modification to a trademark is commonly referred to as “typosquatting” and seeks to wrongfully take advantage of errors by a user in typing a domain name into a web browser. The misspelling of the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity to the CROSSLINK CAPITAL Mark. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.9 (“A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element”); see also Silversea Cruises, Ltd. v. Whois Agent, Domain Protection Services, Inc. / Domain Vault, Domain Vault LLC, WIPO Case No. D2018-2306 (“The Domain Name [silverseas.com] is virtually identical to the SILVERSEA trademark but for the addition of the letter ‘s’ creating a plural version of the SILVERSEA trademark. The addition of the letter ‘s’ does not distinguish the Domain Name from the SILVERSEA trademark and is a common form of typosquatting.”).

Further, the addition of a gTLD such as “.com” in a domain name is technically required. Thus, it is well established that such element may typically be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. See Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva, WIPO Case No. D2012-0182 and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11. Thus, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CROSSLINK CAPITAL Mark.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, a complainant has to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of production of evidence that demonstrates rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant may be deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

In this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case. The Respondent has not submitted any arguments or evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. Further, the Complainant has not authorized, licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its CROSSLINK CAPITAL Mark. The name of the Respondent has no apparent connection to the Disputed Domain Name that would suggest that it is related to a trademark or trade name in which the Respondent has rights. Nor does the Complainant have any type of business relationship with the Respondent.

Noting that the Complainant is a venture capital firm, the composition of the disputed domain name, and based on the use made of the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a website that offers cryptocurrency services, the Panel finds that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services nor making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. In fact, the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name is commercial.

Finally, the composition of the Disputed Domain Name, comprising the entirety of the CROSSLINK CAPITAL Mark with the addition of the letter “s” to make it plural, carries a risk of implied affiliation and cannot constitute fair use here, as it effectively suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5. Specifically, a consumer is likely to incorrectly believe that the cryptocurrency services offered by the Respondent are actually offered by the Complainant, and that the website hosted at “www.crosslinkcapitals.com” is owned and operated by the Complainant, and that the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves is affiliated with or sponsored by the Complainant in some way.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that, based on the record, the Complainant has demonstrated the existence of the Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy as set forth below.

First, the Panel concludes that the Respondent knew about the Complainant’s rights in the CROSSLINK CAPITAL Mark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name, since it added the letter “s” to “capital” to misdirect users from the Complainant’s website to the Respondent’s website by capitalizing on typing mistakes made by users. See Nutricia International BV v. Eric Starling, WIPO Case No. D2015-0773. Moreover, the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its CROSSLINK CAPITAL Mark and was thus intentionally capitalizing on potential customer confusion. Considering the circumstances in this case, it is not possible to conceive of a plausible situation in which the Respondent would have been unaware of the Complainant’s CROSSLINK CAPITAL Mark at the time the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.

Second, the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to a respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the respondent’s website demonstrates registration and use in bad faith. Based on the circumstances here, the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith to target the Complainant’s CROSSLINK CAPITAL Mark, to disrupt the Complainant’s business, and to drive Internet traffic seeking the Complainant’s services to the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves, a cryptocurrency site. See paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Moreover, the registration of a domain name that reproduces a trademark in its entirety (being identical or confusingly similar to such trademark) by an individual or entity that has no relationship to that mark, without any reasonable explanation on the motives for the registration, may be suggestive of opportunistic bad faith. See Ebay Inc. v. Wangming, WIPO Case No. D2006-1107; Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., WIPO Case No. D2000-0163.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.

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 <crosslinkcapitals.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Lynda M. Braun
Sole Panelist
Date: October 20, 2021

¹ According to the trademark certificate, the first use and first use in commerce of the CROSSLINK CAPITAL Mark was September 9, 1999.