About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center


IronFX Global Limited v. Bobs Limited, Peter Smith

Case No. D2014-1703

1. The Parties

The Complainant is IronFX Global Limited of Limassol, Cyprus, represented by Loukia Kanarini, Cyprus.

The Respondent is Bobs Limited, Peter Smith of Douglas, Isle of Man, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <iironfx.com>, <iornfx.com>, <ioronfx.com>, <irinfx.com>, <irnnfx.com>, <irnofx.com>, <iromfx.com>, <irondx.com>, <ironfc.com>, <ironf.com>, <ironffx.com>, <ironfxc.com>, <ironfxx.com>, <ironfz.com>, <irongfx.com>, <ironmfx.com>, <ironnfx.com>, <ironnx.com>, <ironxf.com>, <ironxx.com>, <iroonfx.com> and <irronfx.com> (the "Domain Names") are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 30, 2014. On September 30, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On September 30, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 8, 2014.

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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 13, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 2, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 3, 2014. After such communication and on the same date, the Center received an informal email apparently from Respondent’s Authorized Representative.

The Center appointed Wolter Wefers Bettink as the sole panelist in this matter on November 5, 2014. 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 an online foreign exchange derivatives service provider registered and existing under the laws of Cyprus. The Complainant is the proprietor of the international trade mark registration for a stylized form of the name IRONFX with registration number 1290322 (the “Trade Mark”). The European Union has been designated as one of the territories where the Trade Mark has effect. The Trade Mark has been registered on June 28, 2012.

The Respondent has registered the Domain Names on April 28, 2013. The Domain Names link to a website at “www.marketsworld.com” which offers a platform for online binary options trading.

By e-mail of November 3, 2014 Manx Telecom Ltd, apparently acting as representative for the Respondent, forwarded to the Center under the heading “FW: (MMG) D2014-1703 <iironfx.com> et al. Notification of Respondent Default” an e-mail it had sent earlier on November 3 to the Respondent with copy to the representative for the Complainant which included the following:

“Many thanks for your email dated 16th October 2014 in which you confirmed that whilst the WIPO complaint is not accepted by you, Markets the World take no position regarding the complaint and are not contesting it. I confirm that given your stated position and as Manx Telecom have no control over the domain names referred to within the complaint, we will not be filing any response.”

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, because they are misspellings of the Trade Mark and therefore incorporate the Trade Mark in its entirety. According to the Complainant, the practice of creating domain names with misspellings of well known trade marks is commonly known as typo squatting.

The Complainant states that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the Domain Names as it has not authorized, licensed or otherwise consented to the use of the Domain Names by the Respondent. In the absence thereof, according to the Complainant, the Respondent’s sole purpose in registering the Domain Names - containing misspellings of the Trade Mark - was to take advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill, reputation and recognition by operating a website which appears to offer services identical to those offered by the Complainant.

The Complainant further puts forward that the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. In view of the typosquatting method used by the Respondent, the Complainant submits, it registered the Domain Names to free-ride on the Complainant’s reputation and customer goodwill. According to the Complainant, the Domain Names are being used to attract clients by misleading and confusing them and in that way diverting them away from the Complainant.

B. Respondent

Judging by the e-mail of November 3, 2014 from Manx Telecom to the Respondent, which was forwarded to the Center on the same day, the Respondent has chosen not to contest the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has demonstrated that it has rights in the Trade Mark.

The Domain Names contain the Complainant’s trademark IRONFX with one or several typographical errors. As IRONFX is the dominant element of the Trade Mark, the Panel is satisfied that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made out an un-rebutted prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 2.1). It has not authorized, licensed or otherwise consented to the Respondent's registration and use of the Domain Names. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Names for competing services - given also their apparently deliberate misspelling of the IRONFX element of the Trade Mark - cannot be considered use for bona fide services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use.

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent does not have an own rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Domain Names have been registered well after the Trade Mark was registered. As the Respondent is using the Domain Names for financial services, and the Complainant apparently is one of the leading on line brokers in the world, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its Trade Mark when registering the Domain Names. It follows that the misspellings of (the dominant element of) the Trade Mark are apparently deliberate, to be able to profit from the reputation of the Trade Mark and to confuse Internet users into believing that the websites under the Domain Names are somehow connected to or authorized by the Complainant.

The Panel therefore concludes that the registration of the Domain Names was done in bad faith.

In addition, the use of the Domain Names to provide competing or similar financial services as the Complainant, in this case clearly indicates that the Respondent thereby intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Trade Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's web site or of a product or service on the Respondent’s web site.

The Panel concludes that the Domain Names are also being used in bad faith.

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 names <iironfx.com>, <iornfx.com>, <ioronfx.com>, <irinfx.com>, <irnnfx.com>, <irnofx.com>, <iromfx.com>, <irondx.com>, <ironfc.com>, <ironf.com>, <ironffx.com>, <ironfxc.com>, <ironfxx.com>, <ironfz.com>, <irongfx.com>, <ironmfx.com>, <ironnfx.com>, <ironnx.com>, <ironxf.com>, <ironxx.com>, <iroonfx.com> and <irronfx.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Wolter Wefers Bettink
Sole Panelist
Date: November 19, 2014