À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Moore Capital Management, LP v. Moore Capital Group Inc

Case No. D2016-2168

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Moore Capital Management, LP of New York, New York, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Moore Capital Group Inc of Belize City, Belize.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <moorecapitalgroup.com> is registered with eNom, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 26, 2016. On October 26, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 26, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the 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 proceeding commenced on November 4, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 24, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 25, 2016.

The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on December 8, 2016. 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 partnership organized under the laws of Delaware, United States. It is a provider of financial services including investment and portfolio management services.

The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations in numerous jurisdictions comprising the name MOORE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT with various corporate suffixes. These trademarks include United States trademark number 2775368 for MOORE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP registered on October 21, 2003 in Class 36 and European Union Trade Mark number 5990726 for MOORE EUROPE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLP registered on May 2, 2008 in Class 36.

The disputed domain name, <moorecapitalgroup.com>, was registered on June 23, 2015.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant states that it has used the name and mark MOORE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT since as early as 1989. It states that it operates on a global scale and that it has billions of dollars of funds under management. It provides evidence by way of a Wikipedia entry of its history and business profile.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. It contends that the operative part of its trademark MOORE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT is the term “Moore Capital” and that the addition of the term “group” in the disputed domain name does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that the Respondent is not connected with the Complainant and has no rights to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant submits evidence that in July 2015 the disputed domain name resolved to a website at “www.morecapitalgroup.com”, which purported to offer financial products and/or services but was in fact copied verbatim from a defunct website which had previously been operated by an unrelated party in New Zealand. The Complainant produces a financial investigation report which concludes that the Respondent does not conduct any legitimate business and that there is no record of its named CEO. The Complainant contends in the circumstances that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name for the purpose of a fraudulent operation, seeking to mislead Internet users by taking advantage of customer confusion with the Complainant’s business.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name obviously refers to its trademark MOORE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT but has no legitimate connection with that trademark. The Complainant repeats its allegation that the disputed domain name has been used for the purpose of a fraudulent website. It also contends that the Respondent has provided false contact details in connection with the disputed domain name, including a telephone number “501.999999999” which is not a working number. The Complainant states that it sent the Respondent a “cease and desist” letter in July 2015 and that, while the Respondent’s website was taken down in response that letter, it was subsequently reinstated.

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are:

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

(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.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registered trademark rights in the mark MOORE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT with various suffixes, e.g. LP and LLP, denoting its corporate styles. The disputed domain name is <moorecapitalgroup.com>. The Panel finds that the distinctive part of the Complainant’s trademark is the term “Moore Capital” and that the addition of the term “Group” in the disputed domain name is not effective to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions referred to above give rise to a prima facie case for the Respondent to answer that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not participated in this administrative proceeding and has not provided any explanation for the registration or use of the disputed domain name, whether in accordance with any of the criteria set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. Furthermore, the Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Respondent has not contradicted, that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the purposes of a fraudulent website. Such use would not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests and, having no other evidence of any rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent’s part, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Having regard to the nature of the disputed domain name, the use to which it was put and the lack of any contradiction by the Respondent, the Panel infers that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in the knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark MOORE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT and with the intention of misrepresenting a legitimate connection with that trademark. Furthermore, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s evidence that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the purpose of the fraudulent website described above. The Panel therefore finds that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted 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 that website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). The Panel concludes in the circumstances that the disputed domain name has been registered and is 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 name <moorecapitalgroup.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: December 14, 2016

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