Plaid Inc. v hk s

WIPO Case No. D2023-2914

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Plaid Inc. v. hk s

Case No. D2023-2914

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Plaid Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Coates IP LLP,

United States.

The Respondent is hk s, Hong Kong, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <plaidinc.net> is registered with Amazon Registrar, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 6, 2023. On July 7, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 10, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its

verification response, disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which the Complainant on July 13, 2023, 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 July 17, 2023.

differed from the named Respondent (UNKNOWN RESPONDENT / On behalf of plaidinc.net owner, Identity

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 July 27, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5,
the due date for Response was August 16, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 22, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on September 8, 2023. 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 fintech company. Complainant owns trademark registrations for the PLAID mark in the
United States and globally including, but not limited to, the following: United States registration No.
5,044,352 of the figurative mark PLAID, registered on September 20, 2016, for services in international class
42, and United States registration No. 6,608,997 of the word mark PLAID, registered on January 4, 2022 for
goods and services in international classes 9, 36 and 42.

The Complainant claims that it has been advertising its products continuously through its website at the domain name <plaid.com> since at least as early as June 2014.

The disputed domain name was registered on June 5, 2023. At the time the Complaint was filed it was used for a website which appeared to offer a cryptocurrency exchange. The Complainant has also submitted evidence showing that the website at the disputed domain name was flagged as malicious.

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 term “inc” makes the disputed domain name identical to the Complainant’s corporate name Plaid Inc.

The Complainant further submits that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant and contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant finally submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant thus submits that the Respondent could have chosen a domain name and brand that is not identical to the trademark and trade name of the Complainant, which is one of the largest private fintech companies. The only reason for choosing a name like PLAID is thus to intentionally attempt to attract for financial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website.

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.

page 3

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of the trademark and service mark PLAID 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.

While the addition of other terms here, “inc”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

Therefore, 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.

While 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 often impossible 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. 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 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. In this regard, the Panel notes that the composition of the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark and corresponding to its corporate name carries a risk of implied affiliation, further reinforced by the impersonating nature of the content exhibited at the disputed domain name, and as such cannot constitute fair use. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Noting the lack of any authorization by the Complainant and the disputed domain name’s impersonating content, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Based on the available record, 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.

The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that the Respondent initially used the disputed domain name in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

The fact that the website under the disputed domain name is currently inactive does not prevent a finding of bad faith use in the circumstances of this proceeding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.

page 4

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.

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, <plaidinc.net>, be transferred to the Complainant.

/Knud Wallberg/
Knud Wallberg
Sole Panelist
Date: September 24, 2023