On 12 January 2022 the Complainant, Robinhood Markets Inc (“Robinhood”) filed a domain name complaint using the ADR Forum Resolution against the domain robinhood.shop.
Robinhood, a company which provides online financial services and commission-free investing submitted the following:
It is the proprietor of US Registration No. 4761666 ROBINHOOD in class 36.
The Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in the domain as it is not using the domain in relation to a bona fide offering of goods and services. The domain directed to a page which related to cryptocurrency.
The domain name was registered in bad faith because the domain directed to content relating to cryptocurrency, which is similar to the Complainant’s services, and so use of the domain for similar services of the Complainant’s constituted a bad faith registration.
In its response filed on the 1 February 2022, the Respondent argued the following:
It purchased the domain name on the 15 July 2021. The screenshots of the content on the domain submitted by the Complainant were before this date. It did not have control over the content on the domain before this date.
It did not have any knowledge about the Complainant or its business, nor is the Complainant known in Indonesia, where the Respondent is based.
It intends to use the domain in relation to an online store for the sale of baby and children’s clothes.
Robin Hood is a generic term featured in literature and film.
Unsurprisingly, the Panel decided in Robinhood’s favour. Robinhood had satisfied the 3 requirements under paragraph 4 of the ICANN Policy, namely:
The domain name is identical/confusingly similar to its US Trade Mark Registration No. 4761666 ROBINHOOD in class 36
The Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in the domain, as it is not commonly known by the domain name. Further, the Complainant submitted screenshots of the content of the domain, and it related to cryptocurrency (a similar offering to the Complainant’s). The domain directed to this content even after the Respondent purchased the domain. The Respondent did not submit any evidence to suggest that the domain was being used, or intended to be used as an online shop of baby and children’s clothing.
The Domain was registered in bad faith as before and after the purchase of the domain, it directed to content relating to cryptocurrency. This is similar to the Complainant’s services, and falls within the scope of the Complainant’s trade mark registrations.
Overall, this decision is a reminder for domain owners that have received a complaint that their arguments should be supported by evidence. The Panel as per Rule 15 in the ICANN Policy, can only reach a decision based on the evidence and material in front of them. The Respondent did not submit evidence to show that it intended to use the domain in relation to children’s and baby clothing, and nor did it make the effort to change the content on the domain away from cryptocurrency services. So, this decision cannot be seen as controversial.
For brand owners that have noticed concerning uses, a domain name complaint may be a forum to consider if you do not want to litigate/have the means to litigate but want to take a cost-effect approach to removing concerning use online. Further, brand owners should bear in mind they do not need a trade mark registration or goodwill in the defendant’s jurisdiction in order to file a domain name complaint.