Responding to a WIPO Domain Dispute: A Case Analysis of “MiracleCashFacts.com”

In a recent WIPO arbitration, a notable domain dispute has arisen concerning the website MiracleCashFacts.com. The respondent, Kacee Jackson, provides a robust defense against the allegations from Genesis Teknoloji ve Bilisim Hizmetleri A.S., emphasizing the educational and non-commercial nature of the disputed domain.

Background of the Dispute

MiracleCashFacts.com is accused of being linked to a potential investment scam operated by Miracle Cash&More. The complainant alleges trademark infringement, but the respondent counters by questioning the legitimacy and authority of the complainant’s claims, highlighting the absence of ownership proof and authorization.

Legal Arguments Presented

A. Trademark Similarity and Confusion

The respondent asserts that the terms “Miracle,” “Cash,” and “More” are generic and widely used, which dilutes any claims of specific trademark infringement by the complainant. Over 28,000 trademarks globally utilize these terms in various combinations, underscoring their generic nature.

B. Legitimacy of the Domain’s Use

The domain is used for educational and informational purposes, focusing on discussing the practices of Miracle Cash&More. It serves as a platform for free speech and public discussion, differentiating it from the commercial intent typically protected under trademark law.

C. Rights to the Domain

Under the UDRP, a respondent can demonstrate legitimate interest if the domain was used for bona fide offerings before any dispute notification, known commonly by the domain, or used non-commercially without misleading consumers.

D. Territorial Limitations of Trademarks

The respondent notes that “Miracle Cash&More” is registered only in Turkey, limiting its trademark protection to that territory. Since the domain targets a primarily American audience, the complainant’s trademark rights do not extend to affect the operation of MiracleCashFacts.com in the U.S.

E. Bad Faith Allegations

The respondent argues there was no bad faith in registering or using the domain, as its purpose is informational, aligned with fair use and free speech, not for commercial gain or to mislead consumers.

Requested Actions

The respondent requests a finding of reverse domain name hijacking against the complainant, publication of the decision for public record, and compensation for attorney fees amounting to $20,000.

Conclusion

The defense laid out by Kacee Jackson for MiracleCashFacts.com highlights the importance of considering the generic nature of certain terms, the purpose and content of a domain, and territorial trademark rights. The case underscores the complexities of domain disputes in the digital age, where the lines between trademark rights and free speech often blur. This dispute not only tests the boundaries of trademark law but also the principles governing the internet and public discourse.

The complaint is below:

---

WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER

Genesis Teknoloji ve Bilisim Hizmetleri A.S.                          |

Maslak Mah. AOS 55. Sk. 42 MASLAK                                     |

 B Blok Sitesi No:4 I¢ Kapt No: 570                                          |

 Sariyer, Istanbul/TURKIYE                                                         |

(Complainant)                                                                                |

-v-                                                                                                    |             Disputed Domain Name :

|             miraclecashfacts.com

Kacee Jackson                                                                               |

                                                     

                                                                   |

(Respondent)                                                                                |

RESPONDANTS FIRST RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT

(Rules, Paragraph 3(b); Supplemental Rules, Paragraphs 4(a), 12(a), Annex E)

Background:

Miracle Cash&More is a company that by many estimates is a front for money laundering for Russian and  Iranian interests and undoubtedly an investment scam that solicits investor money with promised returns of 100 – 5,000 times  original investments. The company hides behind a web of over 20 corporations with unknown ownership across Europe and an untraded off-market penny-stock in the USA. Miracle Cash&More previously did business as Ofinans, who had their license revoked by the Money Laundering Data Bureau. These and additional facts are outlined on the website that is the subject of this complaint at MiracleCashFacts.com

The ultimate owner of these companies is believed to be Hakan Torehan, a bad actor in Northers Cyprus who fled there from Turkey after fleecing investors in Turkey for over $10 Million. Torehan was again convicted and served time in Prison in Northern Cyprus for additional financial crimes in that country.

The scam company advertises that a $5,000 payment will result in $10 Million in payouts. The company has taken in over $35 Million in investor money and redirected those funds away from investor-owned assets and into semi-legitimate businesses and other assets for the benefit of Hakan Torehan. The website MiracleCashFacts.com exposes these FACTS in an educational and documented-source manner, allowing for open discussion, where participants can debate or dispute the facts. The website has maintained a policy of 100% factual information, even correcting some of the stated facts when pointed out to be partially inaccurate by the complainant.

We question if the complainant has provided any information that shows that they are the rightful owner of the trademark in question, or has provided any documentation to show that the person filing the complaint has the authority to do so. In addition, the complaint does not provide any type of ownership information on their website or within the complaint. We suspect that this this dispute is quite possibly not originated by an authorized party or originated by a third party using a name that is deceivingly similar to the owner of the trademark.

Respondent is the authorized registrant of MiracleCashFacts.com. MiracleCashFacts.com is a free-speech educational domain dedicated to exposing this fraud.

Sanctions and Actions requested against Complainant:

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking: The Respondent contends that the Complaint has been brought in bad faith and, accordingly, the Complainant should be sanctioned by a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.

Paragraph 15(e) of the UDRP Rules provides that, if “after considering the submissions the panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (‘RDNH’) or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding”. The Respondent is requesting such a finding here.

We request this for each of the domains that are disputed.

Public Decision: We request that the decision, be published to serve as a public record of the dispute and the finding against the complainant, which is important for the respondent.

Costs: We request reasonable attorney fees of $20,000

Response to Claimants arguments

1. CLAIM: The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights

RESPONSE

1. Prevalence of the Constituent Terms in Global Trademarks

The terms “Miracle,” “Cash,” and “More” are widely used in trademarks globally, underscoring their generic and descriptive nature. There are over 10,000 trademark registrations incorporating the term “miracle” and more than 18,000 that include “cash,” in various combinations with other words. This widespread use demonstrates the commonality of these terms in the business and commercial landscape. For instance,  trademarks such as “Cash More” and “More Cash” highlight how these terms are frequently combined in different orders and contexts, reflecting their versatility and generic application across industries.

Given this backdrop, the domain name “MiracleCashFacts.com” incorporates these common terms in a manner that is unlikely to ever be uniquely associated with any other single source, especially when the domain’s content and purpose are distinct from those typically associated with the terms in a commercial sense. This prevalence of similar trademarks dilutes any claim that the combination of these terms in a domain name could singularly point to the complainant’s trademark “Miracle Cash&More” as the source of goods or services.

With regard to MTRCSTOCK.com, no trademark exists for Metaterra, MTRC, MTRCSTOCK.

2. No Confusion Between Trademarks Due to Distinct Purpose and Content

The domain “MiracleCashFacts.com” serves a fundamentally different purpose from the trademark “Miracle Cash&More,” which purportedly provides crypto asset services across Turkey.

“MiracleCashFacts.com” is a not-for-profit Web Application, email, FTP, and blogging platform   for news, information, and parody, focusing on disseminating facts and discussions. This divergence in function and content is critical in assessing the likelihood of consumer confusion. MiracleCashFacts.com uses a theme and “gopher” branding that is nothing like or could possibly confused with the Miracle Cash&More crypto company.

Trademarks are legally protected to prevent confusion among consumers about the source of goods or services. The core of this protection lies in the potential for a trademark to mislead consumers regarding the origin, sponsorship, or endorsement of a product or service. However, when a domain name like “MiracleCashFacts.com” is clearly delineated as an informational and parody site, it does not compete with or mimic the services offered under the “Miracle Cash&More” trademark. This distinction is vital in negating any presumption of consumer confusion, as the nature of the site’s content and its intended audience are markedly different from the commercial activities protected by the trademark in question.

According to filings, the company with a previous stock symbol MTRC is affiliated with Metaterra Corp based out of the Dominican republic. Meteterra Corp, according to EDGAR filings with the SEC is “a corporation established under the corporation laws in the State of Nevada on January 20, 2021. The Company sells auto parts in the Dominican Republic. The same filing shows that the business assets consist of two used cars and a total company value of only $38,000. No one would confuse the domain MTRCStock.com with the corporation Metaterra. With regard to MTRCSTOCK.com, no trademark exists for Metaterra, MTRC, MTRCSTOCK.

Conclusion

Considering the widespread use of the terms “Miracle,” “Cash,” and “More” in various trademarks globally and the distinct purpose and content of “MiracleCashFacts.com,” it is clear that there is no substantial risk of confusion among consumers regarding the source, sponsorship, or endorsement of the website. These factors should be given considerable weight in evaluating the domain name dispute, as they directly address the primary concerns of trademark protection and infringement analysis.

MTRCStock.com is not a trademarked name

• CLAIM: The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;

RESPONSE

Right to and legitimate use of the domain name: According to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), specifically under Article 4(c), a respondent can demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name if they can show any of the following:

Before any notice of the dispute, the respondent used, or made demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;

The respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if they have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

The respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

The disputed domain name is being used for noncommercial, fair use purposes. It is registered to support not-for-profit reporting, commentary, and criticism. The Report is not monetized in any way. The websites contain no ads, solicitations for money or links to commercial sites (except as sources and references). There have been no attempt to sell, rent or otherwise transfer the domain names to anybody.

The Respondent emphasizes that he cites sources for the facts recounted in the report published on the Respondent’s website and gave the Complainant “multiple” opportunities to respond. The Respondent states that he never attempted to sell the disputed domain names or direct them to other websites for commercial gain and observes that the Respondent and the Complainant “are not competitors”. As the Complainant offers no evidence in support of the Complainant’s assertions of bad faith, the Respondent contends that “these false and malicious statements constitute a violation of the Complainant’s Certification” and represent an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, simply trying to “shut down speech that the Complainant finds unfavorable”.

In the cited WIPO case of Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, the Panel established the respondent’s burden to demonstrate a right or legitimate interest in the domain name when challenged. However, it is essential to consider each case’s specifics, including the nature of the domain name’s use.

In the case of “miraclecashfacts.com”, the use of the domain for the purpose of disseminating information, critiques, or facts related to “Miracle Cash&More”, without direct commercial gain, is a legitimate non-commercial use. The intention behind this use, aimed at providing public information or critique, aligns with the principles allowing for freedom of expression and fair use under internet governance policies. The website generates zero revenue and has no commercial value whatsoever.

Furthermore, international law, including principles under the Berne Convention recognizes the importance of protecting expressions of free speech, which includes critical commentary and information dissemination through various media, including the internet.

Therefore, the respondent’s use of “miraclecashfacts.com” should be examined under the lens of legitimate non-commercial or fair use, without presuming an intent to damage the complainant’s commercial reputation unjustly. Each argument should be considered within the context of the broader legal principles that protect the rights to free expression and fair use of internet domains for lawful purposes.

Further, the WIPO case of “Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. – Petrobras v. Ivo Lucio Santana Marcelino Da Silva, Case No. D2014-1331” is particularly relevant. This case demonstrates that non-commercial use of a domain name as a forum for criticism can be considered a legitimate interest under the UDRP. The panel concluded that the use of the disputed domain name for criticism without intent for commercial gain did not violate the trademark holder’s rights. This precedent supports the argument that non-commercial, critical websites can have legitimate interests in domain names, even when they incorporate the trademark.

Educational Legitimate Interest

The use of MiracleCashFacts.com for educational purposes establishes a legitimate interest. The website aims to provide valuable information, possibly about financial literacy or related topics, which does not directly compete with or detract from the trademarked services or products of Miracle Cash&More.

WIPO panels have recognized that the use of a domain name for bona fide educational information can constitute a legitimate interest. In WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 (Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.), the Panel established criteria for a legitimate interest in using a trademark in a domain name, including the site’s offering of genuine, relevant content without intent to mislead consumers.

Distinctiveness and Confusion

MiracleCashFacts.com is distinct from Miracle Cash&More in both visual appearance and purpose. The addition of “Facts” suggests a focus on providing information or educational content rather than commercial services or products. This distinction minimizes the likelihood of confusion among the relevant public.

Precedent: In similar WIPO case law, domain names that clearly indicate a non-commercial intent, especially when combined with descriptive or generic terms, have been found less likely to create confusion. For example, in WIPO Case No. D2003-0455 (Bridgestone Corporation v. Horoshiy, Inc.), the Panel found that the addition of terms indicating the content or intent of the website can differentiate the domain from the trademark.

Territorial Limitations of Trademarks: The territorial limitations inherent in trademark law highlight that a trademark is protected only within the jurisdictions where it is officially registered. This principle, foundational to international trademark law and underscored by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, asserts that “Miracle Cash&More,” as a trademark registered solely in Turkey, is confined in its legal protections to Turkish territory.

Consequently, its legal claims against the domain “MiracleCashFacts.com,” which primarily engages an American audience, are substantially weakened due to the lack of registration in the United States. The Madrid Protocol does not automatically enforce trademark rights across all member countries without specific actions taken to secure such protections in each jurisdiction. Therefore, the absence of evidence showing “Miracle Cash&More” pursued or obtained trademark protection in the U.S. under the Madrid Protocol implies that the trademark’s territorial rights in Turkey do not extend to or impact the operation of “MiracleCashFacts.com.” This domain’s focus on a distinctly different audience and purpose further delineates the lack of infringement on the territorial rights of “Miracle Cash&More.”

Further, the WIPO case “Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., Case No. D2003-0455,” demonstrates the UDRP’s consideration of this territorial nature, indicating that trademarks need to be registered or recognized within a specific jurisdiction to enforce rights. This framework crucially impacts the evaluation of domain name disputes under WIPO’s UDRP, highlighting that a trademark’s rights do not automatically extend globally without explicit registration.

MTRCStock.com and or MTRC is not a trademarked name anywhere.

• The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

RESPONSE

Lack of Bad Faith: The registration and use of “MiracleCashFacts.com” were not motivated by any intention to derive benefit from the goodwill associated with the “Miracle Cash&More” trademark or to confuse consumers. Instead, the domain serves a bona fide informational purpose.

In the case of “Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. – Petrobras v. Ivo Lucio Santana Marcelino Da Silva, Case No. D2014-1331,” the use of a domain name for a site critically examining the complainant’s business practices was not found to be in bad faith when the site was non-commercial and aimed at public discussion.

Accordingly, if “MiracleCashFacts.com” is used in a similar manner—primarily for non-commercial purposes, to disseminate information, critiques, or facts about “Miracle Cash&More” without intent to misleadingly divert consumers or tarnish the trademark for commercial gain—this could argue against the claim of registration and use in bad faith. Critical discussion or review, especially when it does not directly compete with or seek to profit from the complainant’s business, falls within the scope of fair use and legitimate interest, contradicting the assertion of bad faith.

If “MiracleCashFacts.com” aims to engage in lawful critique or consumer education without these intents, it challenges the presumption of bad faith under UDRP guidelines.

It is also worth noting that the company Metaterra Corp does not currently trade on any stock exchange, neither name is trademarked and the terms MTRC and MTRCstock are not protected by any law.