Leather Wallet, LLC v Solomon Adebamiji, Real Ape Club

WIPO Case No. D2024-4777

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Leather Wallet, LLC v. Solomon Adebamiji, Real Ape Club

Case No. D2024-4777

1. The Parties

Complainant is Leather Wallet, LLC, United States of America, represented by Coates IP, United States of

America.

Respondent is Solomon Adebamiji, Real Ape Club, Nigeria.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The Domain Name <leathaer.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 20, 2024. On November 20, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 20, 2024, Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on November 20, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 21, 2024.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 22, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 15, 2024. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 16, 2024.

The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on December 24, 2024. 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

page 2

4. Factual Background

Complainant operates in the field of decentralized finance, including providing digital wallet services for management of digital financial assets, tokens and collectables. Complainant provides its services under the Leather brand and operates its website at “ In addition to its website, Complainant also provides a desktop app for Windows, macOS and Linux, and a browser extension for Chrome, Brave, Opera and Edge. Complainant’s service allows its users to receive, send, trade, swap, and deploy digital tokens and collectables secured by Bitcoin.

Complainant launched its Leather service on August 31, 2023, and has offered its services under its mark since then.

Complainant owns trademark registrations for LEATHER including the European Union trademark registration No. 018870090, LEATHER (word), filed on May 3, 2023, and registered on September 2, 2023, for goods and services in international classes 9, 36, and 42.

The Domain Name was registered on March 4, 2024, and at the time of filing of the Complaint lead to a website (the Website) that was mimicking that of Complainant, being an almost identical mirror of the website of Complainant, using Complainant’s trademarks and format. The users were made to believe that they are using Complainant’s service with the risk of entering their login credentials to their digital wallets. Per Complaint, the contact and support page on the Website were removed.

The Domain Name currently leads to an inactive website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the

Domain Name.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the

Domain Name:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant

has rights; and

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the Domain Name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

page 3

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9.

The Panel finds that the addition of the letter “a” between the “h” and the “e” is a misspelling of the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.

The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is disregarded, as gTLDs typically do not form part of the
comparison on the grounds that they are required for technical reasons (Rexel Developpements SAS v.
Zhan Yequn, WIPO Case No. D2017-0275; and Hay & Robertson International Licensing AG v. C. J. Lovik,

WIPO Case No. D2002-0122). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a Domain Name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed impersonation/passing
off, or other types of fraud can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

page 4

The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Because the LEATHER mark had been used and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration by Respondent, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID No. 09382953107339 dba Whois

Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Domain Administrator, Vertical Axis Inc.D2014-1754Parfums

, WIPO Case No. ; into account the content of the Website which mimics that of Complainant.

As regards bad faith use of the Domain Name, Complainant has demonstrated that the Domain Name was used to resolve to the Website, which mimicked that of Complainant, prominently displaying Complainant’s registered trademark, thereby giving the false impression that it is operated by Complainant. The Domain Name was therefore used to intentionally create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark and

business as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website it resolved to. This can be
used in support of bad faith registration and use (Booking.com BV v. Chen Guo Long, WIPO Case No.
D2017-0311; Ebel International Limited v. Alan Brashear, WIPO Case No. D2017-0001; Walgreen Co. v.
Muhammad Azeem / Wang Zheng, Nicenic International Group Co., Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-1607;
Oculus VR, LLC v. Sean Lin, WIPO Case No. DCO2016-0034; and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4).

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

Furthermore, the fact that the Domain Name currently leads to an inactive website does not prevent a finding of bad faith.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

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 Domain Name <leathaer.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Marina Perraki/
Marina Perraki
Sole Panelist
Date: January 7, 2025