Notesco Financial Services Limited v Hans Ulrich Baertschi

WIPO Case No. D2024-0146

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Notesco Financial Services Limited v. Hans Ulrich Baertschi

Case No. D2024-0146

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Notesco Financial Services Limited, Cyprus, represented internally.

The Respondent is Hans Ulrich Baertschi, Germany.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <ıronfx.com>[1] [xn--ronfx-m4a.com] is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the

“Registrar”).

[1] Initially, the Complainant filed the Complaint against the Respondent for an additional domain name, <lronfx.net>. The Complainant

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 15, 2024.

On January 15, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in

connection with the disputed domain name. On January 15, 2024, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint.

The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 16, 2024, 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 January 18, 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”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the

Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 24, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph

5, the due date for Response was February 13, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response.

Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 15, 2024.

The Center appointed Mladen Vukmir as the sole panelist in this matter on February 21, 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

7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a limited liability company, registered and existing under the laws of the Republic of

Cyprus. The Complainant is an online foreign exchange derivates service provider, it offers investment

services, and is regulated by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission. As a regulated investment

firm, the Complainant serves retails and institutional customers in Europe, and is a part of a larger group of

companies, Notesco Group, which has offices worldwide.

The Complainant is the owner of international trademark registration for a stylized form of name IronFX,

designating various jurisdictions, among others, European Union and United States of America, registered

on June 28, 2012, under the registration number 1129032 for services in class 36-financial affairs (“IronFX

trademark”).

The Complainant is the registrant of a domain name incorporating the Complainant’s IronFX trademark,

<ironfx.eu>, and under said domain name it operates its website “ Notesco Group is a

registrant of a domain name <ironfx.com> under which operates its website “

The disputed domain name was registered on November 30, 2023, and is being used for sending defrauding

emails to the Complainant’s clients.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

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

of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the

Complainant’s domain name and IronFX trademark, because incorporates IronFX trademark precisely. The

only difference between IronFX trademark and the disputed domain name is one letter, dotless “ı” instead of

“i” which is not very visible. The Complainant states that the change of one letter shows that the Respondent

was trying to impersonate IronFX trademark and the services offered by the Complainant. The disputed

domain name can inevitably cause confusion to the public as they are closely related to the Complainant

IronFX trademark.

Further, the Complainant states that the Complainant and Notesco Group hold offices worldwide and are

widely regulated by competent authorities i.e., United Kingdom, Cyprus, South Africa. The Complainant is

using its domain name <ironfx.eu> since 2013, and is well known in the financial market - differentiated and

distinguished from other companies that provide the same services with the Complainant. The Respondent

possesses and/or uses almost identical domain to the Complainant IronFX trademark without the

authorization of the Complainant on purpose in order to confuse potential and /or existing clients. There are

no business relations between the Complainant and the Respondent that could give the Respondent any

rights to use the disputed domain name. In absence of any authorization or otherwise consent by the

page 3

Complainant to the Respondent, it is evident to the Complainant that the Respondent’s sole purpose was to

take advantage of the Complainant’s good will, reputation and recognition operating the disputed domain

name which resembles to the Complainant’s business.

Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith

in order to steal funds from clients of the Complainant by convincing them that the Respondent is associated

and/or an employee of the Complainant. The Respondent is using the domain name to misguide and/or

mislead clients by using the Complainant’s IronFX trademark as a signature on emails sent to several clients.

The Respondent is giving the false impression that the Respondent is an employee of the Complainant and

gives instructions to clients to not deposit funds with the Complainant instead to transfer funds to an e-wallet

which belongs to the Respondent. Also, the Respondent produces fake guarantee of profit documents of

Notesco Limited, a company which belongs to Notesco Group of the Complainant and sends them to clients.

Following the illegal actions of the Respondent, the Complainant and in general Notesco Group are receiving

complaints from clients that suffered monetary damages. The Complainant believes that the Respondent

registered the disputed domain name in spite of the fact that IronFX trademark is well known in the financial

market industry. The Complainant believes that the Respondent has not selected the disputed domain name

randomly and without having prior knowledge of the Complainant’s business worldwide.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

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 disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on

Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Panel finds that 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 Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed

domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section

1.7.

In this Panel’s view, the disputed domain name is registered in an ACE Encoding form which results to an

apparent misspelling of the Complainant’s IronFX trademark in a manner that “i” from IronFX trademark is

substituted with dotless “ı” in the disputed domain name. 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. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9.

The generic Top-Level Domain “.com” is a standard registration requirement and as such may be

disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. 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 disputed domain name.

page 4

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 disputed 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 disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the

Policy or otherwise.

The Respondent is not authorized by the Complainant to use IronFX trademark, and there is no indication

that the Respondent is commonly known under the disputed domain name. There is no apparent relation

from the record between the Respondent and the Complainant, nor does it arise that the Complainant has

ever licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its IronFX trademark, or to apply for or use any

domain name incorporating the same trademark.

There is no evidence in the case file or otherwise apparent to the Panel that the Respondent has been using

the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or making a legitimate

noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has failed to provide any reply to

the Complaint, and accordingly failed to rebut the Complainant’s showing that the Respondent has no rights

or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The nature of the disputed domain name, comprising the Complainant’s misspelled IronFX trademark

indicates an awareness of the Complainant and its IronFX trademark and creates a risk of implied affiliation

or association with the Complainant, which does not support a finding of any rights or legitimate interests in

this case. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here sending emails to the Complainant’s

clients falsely pretending to be sent by the Complainant) 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.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent used the disputed domain name as a part of an

email address to impersonate the Complainant and defraud the Complainant’s clients. In this Panel’s view,

the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its IronFX trademark when registering the disputed

domain name.

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 5

Based on evidence provided by the Complainant this Panel concludes that the Complainant’s IronFX

trademark are distinctive, well-known and that it is highly unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the

Complainant and its trademark when he registered the disputed domain name.

Incorporation of a well-known trademark in a domain name having no plausible explanation for doing so is in

itself an indication of bad faith (see Intel Corporation v. The Pentium Group, WIPO Case No. D2009-0273).

Moreover, in earlier UDPR decisions panels have found that the respondents who fail to search and/or

screen registrations against available databases would be responsible for any resulting abusive registrations

under the concept of wilful blindness. WIPO Overview 3.0., section 3.2.3.

In this Panel’s view, by registering the disputed domain name that contains the Complainant’s IronFX

trademark, the Respondent is attempting to take advantage of the Complainant’s reputation, and well-known

trademark, and concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In earlier UDRP decisions Panels have held that the use of a domain name for purposes other than to host a

website may constitute bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. The Panel concludes that in the present

case use of the disputed domain name to send deceptive emails constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

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 disputed domain name <ıronfx.com> [xn--ronfx-m4a.com] be transferred to the Complainant.

/Mladen Vukmir/ Mladen Vukmir

Sole Panelist

Date: March 6, 2024

requested the Center to withdraw the <lronfx.net> domain name from the Complaint and continue the proceeding only with the disputed

domain name <ıronfx.com >. The Center accepted the Complainant’s request without prejudice to file another Complaint with respect to
the <ıronfx.com> domain name, and the proceeding commenced with <ıronfx.com > as the sole disputed domain name in this
proceeding.