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

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Stripe, Inc. v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1241253828 / Name Redacted

Case No. D2017-2072

1. The Parties

Complainant is Stripe, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America, represented by Ladas & Parry, United States of America.

Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1241253828 of Toronto, Ontario, Canada / Name Redacted.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <stripe-confirm.com> is registered with Google Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 24, 2017. On October 25, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 31, 2017, 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 November 1, 2017 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 2, 2017.

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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 10, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 30, 2017.

Respondent, a privacy shield service and a named individual, did not submit a formal response to the Complaint. However, by email dated November 23, 2017, the named individual Respondent advised the Center that he was not responsible for the registration of the disputed domain name, that much of the contact information as listed in the publically available Internic WhoIs database does not pertain to him, that on his investigation it appears that an unknown third-party has registered more than one domain name without his knowledge or consent, and that he wished to relinquish any and all control over these falsely register domain names. Included in that email of November 23, 2017 were links to biographical and business information regarding the named individual Respondent. By email of November 27, 2017, the Center advised the named individual that the panel appointed to decide the case would consider and address his responsive information.

The Center appointed Frederick M. Abbott as the sole panelist in this matter on December 13, 2017. 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.

Upon preliminary review of the case file, by Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1 (“Procedural Order No. 1”), dated December 15, 2017, the Panel referred the parties to a previous panel determination, Accenture Global Services Limited v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2013-2099. In that proceeding, this sole panelist issued an Administrative Panel Procedural Order requesting the individual initially named as respondent, and who asserted fraudulent use of her name and contact information, to provide some additional evidence that would support the assertion that she was not the party responsible for the registration. In that referenced proceeding, having concluded that the individually named respondent had been the subject of third-party misuse of personal identity, this sole panelist redacted the name of the individual respondent from its decision, and directed the Registrar to transfer the disputed domain name by means of an Annex that was transmitted to the Registrar by the Center, but was not included in the published decision. This sole panelist considered it appropriate to protect the identity and privacy of the individual named respondent in that proceeding because said respondent had played no role in registration of the disputed domain name. (The Panel notes that he has issued several decisions involving similar circumstances. The above-referenced decision is an example of such.)

In the present proceeding, by its Procedural Order No. 1 the Panel likewise requested the individual named Respondent in this proceeding to provide such supporting evidence as might be available, such as information regarding the party that had paid for registration of the disputed domain name, to substantiate that the disputed domain name was registered without his knowledge or consent. The named individual duly contacted the Registrar and was advised that because of privacy concerns the Registrar was unable to provide additional information. By email dated December 20, 2017, Complainant stated “As the Respondent did not provide any evidence, Complainant does not wish to provide anything further and requests that the Panel issue an order on the documents provided.”

4. Discussion and Findings

The Panel is satisfied that the individual named Respondent in this proceeding was not party to registration of the disputed domain name, and that registration of the disputed domain name was secured fraudulently (i.e., through knowing misuse by a third-party of the individual Respondent’s identity). The Registrar has advised that the second Respondent, Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1241253828 Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1241253828, is not the registrant of the disputed domain name.

There are a number of factors in the present dispute that confirm the Panel’s finding. Correspondence between the Center and the individually named Respondent support his assertion that substantial parts of the contact information in the record of registration for the disputed domain name are incorrect. Respondent has provided a record of contact with the Registrar that credibly support his efforts to remedy the situation regarding the fraudulently registered disputed domain name. Detailed biographical and professional information furnished by Respondent serve as material supporting evidence in regard to good faith. Finally, the individual named Respondent’s immediate disclaimer of knowledge of the disputed domain name and his offer to relinquish any interest in it are consistent with the aforementioned factors in favor of name redaction.

The Panel does not consider it appropriate or necessary to take into account the interests of the third-party that undertook the registration under false pretenses. The Panel therefore renders this Decision in summary form, taking into account that Complainant has provided substantial evidence to support its rights in the STRIPE trademark.

On the basis of the evidence presented in the Complaint, and taking into account the evidence provided by the individual named Respondent, the Panel determines that (1) Complainant has rights in the trademark STRIPE, (2) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that trademark, (3) Complainant has established that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and (4) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

5. 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, <stripe-confirm.com>, be transferred to Complainant.

For purposes of properly executing this order, the Panel also directs the Registrar’s attention to Annex 1 hereto that identifies the individual listed as registrant of the disputed domain name in the formal record of registration, and orders that the disputed domain name, <stripe-confirm.com>, be transferred from that individual to Complainant.

The Panel directs the Center that Annex 1 shall not be published along with this Decision.

Frederick M. Abbott
Sole Panelist
Date: December 26, 2017

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/