10X LLC v Privacy Service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / cap ten

WIPO Case No. D2022-0779

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

10X LLC v. Privacy Service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / cap ten,
10xcapitals

Case No. D2022-0779

1. The Parties

The Complainant is 10X LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Sisun Law, United

States.

The Respondent is Privacy Service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf. Iceland / cap ten, 10xcapitals,

United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <10xcapitals.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 March 4, 2022.

On March 7, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On March 7, 2022, 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 March 14, 2022, 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 April 13, 2022.

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 the due date for Response was May 10, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly,

the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 1, 2022.

page 2

The Center appointed Lynda M. Braun as the sole panelist in this matter on June 8, 2022. 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, a Delaware limited liability company, is an investment firm with global clients who invest

alongside the world’s top technology investors in private and public markets. The Complainant is the owner

of the registered trademark 10X CAPITAL, United States Registration No. 6,441,711, registered on August 3, 2021, with a first use in commerce of January 1, 2018, in international class 36 (hereinafter referred to as the

“10X CAPITAL Mark”).[1]

[1] Hans Thomas, the founder of the Complainant, is listed as the owner of the 10X CAPITAL Mark on the trademark registration

The Complainant owns the domain name <10xcapital.com>, which it registered on September 4, 2016, and

which resolves to the Complainant’s official website at “ The Complainant’s website is

used in connection with financing, investing, venture capital, and loans, among other services. The

Complainant’s website attracts over 1200 visitors per month in traffic based on a rough average of visitors

from January 2021 to January 2022.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on November 22, 2021 and resolves to the Respondent’s

website at “ attempting to pass off as the Complainant’s website. The Respondent

uses the 10X CAPITAL Mark (without the “s”) on its website, where it advertises identical investment

services as the Complainant, provides a list of the Complainant’s clients as if they were those of the

Respondent, and lists the Complainant’s address as its own address,[2] all to create a false association with

the Complainant and divert consumers to the Respondent’s website to confuse consumers, and for the

Respondent’s commercial gain.

[2] At some point between February 17, 2022 and March 1, 2022, the Respondent changed its address on the website from that identical

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The following are the Complainant’s contentions:

- the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s 10X CAPITAL Mark;

- 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.

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant prove the following elements in order to prevail in this proceeding:

(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 was 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 10X CAPITAL Mark.

It is uncontroverted that the Complainant has established rights in the 10X CAPITAL Mark based on its several years of use as well as its registered trademark for the 10X CAPITAL Mark in the United States,

where the Respondent purportedly resides. The consensus view 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. D2015-0734. The Respondent has not rebutted this presumption, and therefore the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the 10X CAPITAL Mark. Moreover, the registration of a mark satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP

Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.2.1. Thus, the Panel finds that the Complainant

has rights in the 10X CAPITAL Mark.

The Disputed Domain Name consists of the 10X 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 10X CAPITAL Mark.

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 10X 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

page 4

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. The Complainant

has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its 10X CAPITAL Mark. Nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.

does the Complainant have any type of business relationship with the Respondent and there is no evidence
that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by any name similar to it. The

Based on the use made of the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a website that attempts to pass off the

Complainant’s official website to deceive consumers into believing that they have reached a website that is

operated or endorsed by or otherwise affiliated with the Complainant, 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. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1 (“Panels have categorically held that the

use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals,

phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other

types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.”).

The Respondent is using the confusingly similar Disputed Domain Name to redirect to a website that purports to provide financial services almost identical to and competing with those of the Complainant,

coupled with its attempt to pass itself off as the Complainant through its use of the Complainant’s 10X

CAPITAL Mark, the Complainant’s list of partners, and initially, the Complainant’s address. Such use is

neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy 4(c)(iii). See MasterCard International Incorporated v. Dhe Jonathan Firm, WIPO

Case No. D2007-0831 (finding that the act of linking the respondent’s impersonating website to the

complainant’s official website was not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate

noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name).

Noting that the Complainant is a financial services 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 purports to offer venture capital and 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, noting the nature of the website at the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel has serious doubts on

whether any actual services are provided, and the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name cannot

be considered as noncommercial.

Finally, the composition of the Disputed Domain Name, comprising the entirety of the 10X 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 impersonates or 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 financial and

cryptocurrency services advertised on the Respondent’s website are actually offered by the Complainant,

and that the website hosted at “ is owned and operated by the Complainant, and that

the aforementioned website 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.

page 5

First, the Panel concludes that the Respondent knew about the Complainant’s rights in the 10X 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

Nutricia International BV v. Eric Starling, WIPO Case No. D2015-0773. Moreover,

by users. See the 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

10X CAPITAL Mark at the time the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name. See Telstra

Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. Specifically, the Respondent

must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark, particularly given that the Respondent is not only

using the confusingly similar domain name <10xcapitals.com>, but at the resolving website located at

“ the Respondent is also using the Complainant’s exact 10X CAPITAL Mark (without

the added letter “s” in the Disputed Domain Name), the Complainant’s list of partners, and the Complainant’s

address.

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 10X 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

financial services site passing off as the Complainant. 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 <10xcapitals.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Lynda M. Braun/

Lynda M. Braun

Sole Panelist
Date: June 22, 2022

certificate but assigned the trademark and associated goodwill to the Complainant on August 4, 2021.

to the Complainant’s to a different one.