TopForexNews.org

Fxddcn Com Domain Name Dispute Case

20.05.2021Brokers

Fxdirectdealer Llc

Table of Contents Heading

And finally, there is no evidence of FXDirectDealer LLC being registered with any financial authority in the US. Plus500 is a FTSE 250 listed brokerage providing online trading services in CFDs, across 2,000+ securities and multiple asset classes. There is also very little information about the trading conditions.

9 to plead the predicate acts of mail and wire fraud with particularity; Plaintiff fails to allege a RICO enterprise distinct from the RICO “person”; Plaintiff has no standing under RICO because he does not allege how the scheme caused his losses; and Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable four-year statute of limitations. FXDD also contends that Plaintiff’s four state law claims fail as a matter of law. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants FXDD’s motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. To the extent FXDD suggests that we might view the Agreement’s disclaimers as also applying to bad faith conduct, we disagree for reasons rooted in New York law. See Kalisch–Jarcho, Inc. v. City of New York, 58 N.Y.2d 377, 385, 461 N.Y.S.2d 746, 448 N.E.2d 413 (“n exculpatory clause is unenforceable when, in contravention of acceptable notions of morality, the misconduct for which it would grant immunity smacks of intentional wrongdoing.”). each case, however, the New York Court of Appeals rejected the section 349 claims of the out-of-state plaintiffs because they had not alleged that the deceptive transactions themselves occurred in New York.

Court:

It has offered an international platform to clients worldwide since at least May 3, 2012 and currently offers both Chinese and English language versions of its website at “”. The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 24, 2020.

This step generally involves displaying to the dealer all of the groups to which customers have been assigned, and providing an interface, such as checkboxes, through which the dealer may select one or more of the groups for which to display information about customer orders. For instance, one reason to perform this step would be to restrict the displayed information to a high risk group of customers or transactions. At step 610, method 600 includes receiving with the computer information sufficient to assign each customer to one of a plurality of groups, including at least a high risk group and a low risk group. As described above with regard to risk management tool 500, a customer may be assigned to a group based on many factors, such as the volume of the customer’s current or past orders, the customer’s past trading performance, the customer’s geographic location (or the location of the customer’s account), such as a country, or for any other reason at the dealer’s discretion. The calculations of steps 604 and 606 typically involve simply aggregating the customer orders as they are received. However, doing this substantially simultaneously with receiving the orders, i.e., in “real time,” generally cannot be done by a technologically unaided dealer, but rather requires the use of a computer. 5 is a flow diagram depicting a method, generally indicated at 600, of displaying information associated with currency exchange transactions in real time.

No Access To Trading Platform

In the present case, the disputed domain name is comprised of the Complainant’s distinctive trademark FXDD in its entirety and the additional descriptive term “asian”. It was registered several years after the Complainant’s FXDD series trademarks and more than a dozen years after the first use of “Fxdd” in commerce. Finally, the Complainant must prove that a disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4 of the Policy). Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The nature of such additional term may however bear on the assessment of the second and third elements (see, e.g., BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd v. Oloyi,WIPO Case No. D ). Under the first element of the Policy, a complainant must prove that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights (paragraph 4 of the Policy). The Complainant argues that the three elements for transfer of the disputed domain name have been satisfied in the present case.

As a result, “ claim for breach of the implied covenant will be dismissed as redundant where the conduct allegedly violating the implied covenant is also the predicate for breach of covenant of an express provision of the underlying contract.” ICD Holdings S.A. 234, 243–44 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (dismissing claim for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing where the claim “rest entirely on the breaches of the purchase agreement alleged in the first claim for relief”). Like the FXCM case, the suit alleges that FXDD uses specially designed software to manipulate trading and “loot” its customer accounts, and also that FXDD lures its customers by promoting a “demo account,” which was touted as providing customers with a true market trading experience.

2d 616 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (granting the plaintiff’s motion to enjoin the defendant from terminating the merger agreement despite the defendant’s claim that performing the agreement would lead to an approximate $1 million financial loss per month). Since the IP agreement did not define “commercially reasonable efforts,” the plaintiff had to establish the meaning of the term using objective standards. Based on testimony from the plaintiff’s expert witness, the standard of “commercially reasonable efforts” to promote a product in the mining and construction industry is proper planning. As the defendant failed to show evidence of a clear marketing plan or an effort to implement a later proposed marketing plan, the court found that the defendant failed to undertake “commercially reasonable efforts” to satisfy its obligations under the agreement.

Fxddcn Com

Provided, however, that such assignment shall not create a situation where either Party will be in violation of any applicable rule or regulation to which it is subject. The Parties agree that Nukk may terminate the Agreement in whole or in part at any time. FXDD may terminate this Agreement provided it supplies written notice of at least 90 days prior to the termination date, and, further, that FXDD shall fully cooperate with Nukk in the transfer of any or all of the Support provided to a third party outsource provider designated by Nukk or to Nukk directly. In any event, FXDD shall take all commercially reasonable actions to ensure that the termination of the services do not create a detriment to the continuity and quality of Nukk’s provision of services to its clients. FXDD represents that it will fully cooperate with Nukk to create for and provide to Nukk such tools and access to such systems as may be necessary for Nukk to monitor, supervise and manage the effectiveness and inherent risks of the Support provided by FXDD. FXDD represents that it has in place a disaster recovery plan and a business continuity plan that will permit it to continue to deliver Support with minimal interruption in the event of disruption.

The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the customer exchange rates are based at least partially on a market condition. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the customer exchange rates for each customer are based at least partially on a predefined rate setting associated with the customer, in combination with the dealer exchange rates. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the customer exchange rates for each customer are based at least partially on a risk group to which the customer is assigned. The system of claim 10, wherein the customer exchange rates are based at least partially on a market condition. The system of claim 10, wherein the customer exchange rates provided to each particular customer are based at least partially on a predefined setting associated with the particular customer, in combination with the dealer exchange rates. The system of claim 10, wherein the customer exchange rates provided to each particular customer are based at least partially on a risk group to which the particular customer is assigned.

Business Trial Group Files Lawsuit Against Fxdirectdealer, Llc

The Complaint alleged that FXDD’s anti-money laundering program was inadequate for numerous reasons, including a failure to investigate potentially suspicious or questionable activity and a failure to follow its procedures for customers who reside in countries publicly identified by the Financial Action Task Force. December 10, Chicago — National Futures Association has ordered FXDirectDealer LLC , an NFA Member and previously registered CFTC retail foreign exchange dealer located in New York City, to pay a $500,000 fine and operate solely as an NFA Member introducing broker . Backed by the resources of one of the nation’s largest plaintiffs’ law firm, the Business Trial Group handles cases in Florida and throughout the country. Though Morgan & Morgan has nearly 50 offices in 15 states, you do not have to live near one of our locations to benefit from our service. has filed a class action lawsuit against FXDirectDealer, LLC alleging fraud and racketeering by one of the nation’s larger Forex dealers.

The proposed new home for the company is Newport Tower, at 525 Washington Street. Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission today issued an Order filing and simultaneously settling charges that, between November 2010 and December 2012, FXDirectDealer, LLC , a CFTC-registered Retail Foreign Exchange Dealer and Futures Commission Merchant headquartered in New York, New York, failed to comply with minimum financial requirements for RFEDs and FCMs.

Fxdirectdealer, Llc Ordered To Pay $600,000 Civil Monetary Penalty And To Comply With Three

The method of claim 2, wherein the geographic distinction is a country in which the order was received. Techniques for measuring user engagementOctober, 2007Soito et al. Non-Deterministic Trading Systems and MethodsJuly, 2008Hor et al.

of Congress, it was within its good faith business judgment to expend resources lobbying members of Congress who opposed the acquisition. Accordingly, the court affirmed that the plaintiff failed to show the defendant breached its duties to use all “reasonable efforts.” RISK MONITORING. FXDD will provide trained personnel to assess and monitor risk as well as qualified and trained personnel to review Nukk’s and its customers’ risk. This staff, its duties and performance will be reviewed and approved by the relevant Nukk managers or officers in charge of the respective areas. No services or actions will be taken without the knowledge and agreement of the relevant Nukk personnel in charge. Plaintiff’s allegations in Count Five are based on the same allegations that underlie the breach of contract claim—namely that FXDD “engaged in various unscrupulous acts” to misappropriate and manipulate customers’ investments. (Am. Compl. ¶ 123.) As Plaintiff does not base this claim on any new facts, Count Five is redundant of Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim and is dismissed with prejudice.

Over $20m Is Tax Credits Awarded To N Y. Businesses To Relocate To Jersey City

The June Complaint also charged FXDD with making improper price adjustments in customers’ accounts; converting customer funds; willfully submitting misleading information to NFA and others; and failing to treat all customers equally when giving price adjustments. In light of the above analysis, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of and intent to target the Complainant’s trademark, thereafter linking the disputed domain name to the associated website containing pornographic and other advertising content for its own commercial benefit. The Panel finds that that constitutes registration and use in bad faith for the purposes of paragraph 4 of the Policy and that the third element under the Policy has thus been established. Finally, it must be noted that despite being faced with the Complainant’s allegations of bad faith conduct, the Respondent has failed to bring forward any explanation which might indicate an alternative good faith motivation but rather has chosen to remain silent.

Forex Bonuses and offers are for trading information only and should not be considered as advice or encourage to invest in the brokers. Please read ourprivacy policy and legal disclaimerandNFA’s Investor Advisory. conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Cruz’s remaining claims with prejudice. “While leave to amend under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is ‘freely granted,’ seeFed.R.Civ.P. On appeal, in connection with his breach of contract claim, Cruz points only to FXDD’s failure to use its best efforts to effect customer trades, as required by the Agreement.

Setting customer exchange rates can be thought of as including two types of considerations. First, the dealer must evaluate the plurality of quotes or exchange rates being offered to the dealer by financial institutions, including not only the quoted rates, but also factors such as the estimated reliability of the quote, the time since the quote was last updated, the volatility of the quote, and any limitations on orders associated with the quote, among others. This evaluation enables the dealer to estimate the best rate the dealer could obtain from a financial institution for a given currency pair at a given instant of time. The factors described above, and the resulting exchange rates that the dealer expects to be available from financial institutions, may be processed and managed by processor 20 through price control tool or screen 36, as will be described in more detail below.

At step 616, method 600 optionally may include covering a subset of the orders by carrying out currency exchanges with the financial institution offering the best rates corresponding to the subset of orders. For example, the dealer may wish to cover orders associated with high risk customers, if it appears that the potential profit is below some desired threshold. Similarly, the dealer may wish to cover some other subset of the customer orders based on the potential profit of that subset at a point in time. On the other hand, if the dealer has covered a subset of customer orders by carrying out currency exchanges with financial institutions, then the dealer can check box 522 to see the effect of covering these positions.

However, accumulating position exposes the dealer to risk—if the exchange rate fluctuates contrary to the dealer’s prediction, the dealer may suffer a loss. Thus, a dealer’s decisions about whether to cover particular customer orders by placing analogous position requests with a financial institution determines the dealer’s financial risk, and ultimately determines the dealer’s profits. The Complainant has submitted ample evidence which demonstrates that the Respondent, through the disputed domain name, seeks to attract Internet users to its website and away from the Complainant by creating a false affiliation with the Complainant. The Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer financial services of a company named “Fxdd”, which coincidentally shares the same logo, history, business address and phone number as the Complainant, and provides customers with downloadable forms that are identical to or based on the Complainant’s forms. The Respondent has established a customer service email address unrelated to the Complainant through which it asks customers to submit personal details, presumably for its own commercial use and eventually illegitimate commercial gain. 2d 568, 618 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (holding that a rational reading of “commercially reasonable” must exclude actions that will hurt the party financially); Rex Med.

Businessweek

Thus, where the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s distinctive trademark as its dominant element and differs from one of the Complainant’s domain names by only one letter, it is difficult to conceive of any rights or legitimate interests the Respondent could have in the disputed domain name, especially in the absence of any explanation on the Respondent’s part. Under the second element, a complainant must demonstrate that the respondent should be deemed as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (paragraph 4 of the Policy). Lastly, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Due to the well-known status and extensive use of the FXDD trademarks by the Complainant prior to the registration date of the disputed domain name, the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant and its services. This is supported by the Respondent’s registering a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FXDD mark, as well as its use of the Complainant’s registered FXDD marks and various information on the associated website to represent itself as being, or at least connected to, the Complainant. She is a former Assistant General Counsel at Kroll Associates, Inc., where she supported its cybersecurity and data breach services businesses.

The relationship of the Parties shall be solely that of independent contractors, and nothing in the Agreement, or in the business or dealings between the Parties, shall be construed to make them joint venturers or partners with each other. Neither Party shall do anything to suggest to third Parties that the relationship between the Parties is anything other than that of independent contractors. FXDD represents that it shall undertake all Support in a professional businesslike manner with all due care, skill and diligence as is customary in the financial Support industry and is required under applicable rules and regulations including, but not limited to, the USA Patriot Act and the Bank Secrecy Act.

(Pl’s Mem. at 8 (citing Cedric Kushner, 533 U.S. at 166, 121 S.Ct. 2087).) Cedric Kushner involved allegations that a corporate employee was a RICO “person” and the corporation was the “enterprise.” See533 U.S. at 164, 121 S.Ct. The Court distinguished Riverwoods, explaining that Riverwoods “concerned the claim that the corporation was the ‘person’ and the corporation, together with all its employees and agents, were the ‘enterprise.’ ” Id. The Court stated that it was not overruling Riverwoods and other decisions in line with its reasoning, but “note only their distinction from the instant case.” Id. To establish a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962, in turn, a plaintiff must show “ conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.” De Falco, 244 F.3d at 306 (citing Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 ).