WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center


Ironfx Global Limited v. Risna Wati / Privacy Protection Service Inc.

Case No. D2015-0155

1. The Parties

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

Respondent is Risna Wati of Kebakramat, Indonesia / Privacy Protection Service Inc., Nobby Beach, Queensland, Australia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <ironfxglobal-ltd.com> is registered with PT Ardh Global Indonesia (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 30, 2015. On January 30, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 11, 2015, 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 Complainant on February 11, 2015 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 February 11, 2015.

The Center verified that 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 February 12, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 4, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 10, 2015.

The Center appointed David Perkins as the sole panelist in this matter on March 18, 2015. 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

4.A. Complainant

4.A.1 Complainant was incorporated in January 2010 as Ironforex Limited. It changed name to Ironfx Financial Services Limited on April 19, 2011, then to Ironfx Limited on July 22, 2013 and, finally, to its current name, Ironfx Global Limited on September 2, 2013.

4.A.2 Complainant is an online foreign exchange derivatives service provider registered under the laws of the Republic of Cyprus and regulated by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission. As a regulated investment firm, Complainant serves retail and institutional customers from over 180 countries in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. It has over 50 offices worldwide and more than 1,600 employees providing support in more than 46 different languages. Complainant's subsidiaries are also authorised and regulated by the Financial Control Authority (FCA) in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), the Financial Service Provider in New Zealand (FSP), the Financial Services Board in South Africa and is a member of the Non-Profit Self-Regulatory Partnership (CRFIN) in the Russian Federation and the Ukrainian Center for OTC Financial Instruments and Technologies Developments (UCRFIN) in Ukraine. Complainant is also a member of the Eurex Exchange and is a European Union (“EU”) regulated and Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) compliant firm.

4.A.3 As further evidence of its leadership in the worldwide online trading arena, exhibited to the Complaint is a link to the announcement of its official partnership agreement with Football Club Barcelona.

4.A.4 Complainant is the registered proprietor of the service mark IRONFX in Class 36 in respect of financial affairs in the United States of America, under registration number 4,362,855 filed on June 28, 2012 and registered on July 9, 2013. Complainant is also the registered proprietor of International Registration Number 1,129,032 for the IRONFX service mark in Class 36, which was registered on June 28, 2013 and subsists in some 60 countries, including the EU as a Community Trade Mark.

4.A.5 Complainant is also the registrant of the domain name <ironfx.com>, which was created on February 10, 2008.

4.B. Respondent

4.B.1 In the absence of a Response, all that is known of the Respondent is set out in the Amended Complaint and its Annexes.

4.B.2 The disputed domain name was registered on March 10, 2014.

4.B.3 The disputed domain name resolves to a website which not only offers the same services as Complainant but is to all intents and purposes a mirror image of Complainant’s website.

4.B.4 It also appears from the amended Complaint that the Respondent has, or had, a contractual relationship with the Complainant whereunder Respondent acted as an Introducing Broker (IB). That involved promotion of Complainant’s products and services. As an IB, Respondent, who is located in Indonesia, had used the domain name <ironfxindonesia.com>. Complainant had warned Respondent that that domain name infringed its rights in the mark IRONFX and breached her Agreement under which she had acknowledged that she was not entitled to register a business or use a domain name that included Complainant’s IRONFX mark. Respondent then transferred the <ironfxindonesia.com> domain name to Complainant to avoid legal action.

4.B.5 When Complainant became aware of the disputed domain name, which resolved to the website “www.ironfxglobal-ltd.com”, it realised a connection with Respondent and in December 2014 sent a Cease and Desist email to Respondent. That email is exhibited to the amended Complaint, as is Respondent’s reply of December 19, 2014 offering to sell that website to Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

5.A. Complainant

5.A.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar

5.A.1.1 Complainant says that the disputed domain name incorporates its IRONFX service mark in its entirety, with the addition of the descriptive word “global”. As such, Complainant’s case is that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the IRONFX service mark. In that respect, Complainant cites the decision in Alstom v. Yulei, WIPO Case No. D2007-0424, which concerned complainant’s well known ALSTOM trade mark and corporate name and the disputed domain name <alstom-china.com>.

5.A.1.2 Additionally, as noted in paragraph 4.A.1 above, on September 2, 2013 Complainant changed to its current name IronFX Global Ltd., by which it is well known in the online foreign exchange derivatives sector and which predated creation on March 10, 2014 of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s corporate name in its entirety. Further evidence, Complainant says, of confusing similarity between its IRONFX service mark and the disputed domain name.

5.A.1.3 Furthermore, Complainant refers to the confusing similarity between its own domain name, <ironfx.com> created in February 2008, and the disputed domain name.

5.A.2 Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant’s case is that Respondent cannot demonstrate any of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. Additionally, Complainant has not authorised or otherwise consented to use by the Respondent of the disputed domain name. Indeed, under the IB Agreement between the parties – summarized in paragraph 4.B.4 above – Respondent specifically acknowledged that she had no right to register and/or operate a domain name that included Complainant’s IRONFX service mark.

5.A.3 Registered and Used in Bad Faith

5.A.3.1 Complainant asserts that Respondent’s conduct falls within paragraphs 4(b)(i) and (iv) of the Policy. As to paragraph 4(b)(i), citing Alstom v Yuleu, supra and referring to Respondent’s email of December 19, 2014 offering to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant, Complainant says that Respondent clearly registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it for valuable consideration in excess of her out of pocket expenses directly related to that name.

5.A.3.2 Given the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with Complainant’s IRONFX service mark, it’s <ironfx.com> domain name and it’s corporate name, Complainant’s case is that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

5.B. Respondent

As noted, no response has been filed. Respondent’s only reply to Complainant’s Cease and Desist letter was to invite Complainant to make an offer to buy the disputed domain name: see, paragraph 4.B.5 above.

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1 The Policy, paragraph 4(a) provides that Complainant must prove each of the following in order to succeed in an administrative proceeding

(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

6.2 The Policy, paragraph 4(c) sets out circumstances which, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved shall demonstrate Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

6.3 The Policy, paragraph 4(b) sets out circumstances which, again in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

6.4 As stated, the circumstances set out in paragraphs 4(b) and 4(c) of the Policy are not exclusionary. They are without limitation. That is, the Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence relevant to the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.

6.5 Identical and Confusingly Similar

For the reasons asserted by Complainant, which are summarised in paragraphs 5.A.1 above, Complainant’s case is well made out and the Panel finds that the Complaint satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

6.6 Rights or Legitimate Interests.

On the facts summarised in paragraphs 4.B.4 and 5.A.2 above, it is clear that Respondent cannot demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests or that any of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complaint meets the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

6.7 Registered and Used in Bad Faith

On the facts summarised in paragraph 5.A.3 above, Complainant’s case under paragraphs 4(b)(i) and (iv) of the Policy is well made out. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complaint meets the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(a) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <ironfxglobal-ltd.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

David Perkins
Sole Panelist
Date: March 24, 2015