WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Priority One Financial Services Inc. v. Michael Cronin
Case No. D2006-1499
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Priority One Financial Services Inc., Florida, United States of America, represented by Thomas & LoCicero PL, United States of America.
The Respondent is Michael Cronin, Blue Water Finance, Florida, United States of America, collectively referred to in the present proceedings as Respondent.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Abacus America Inc. dba Names4Ever a/k/a A.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 22, 2006. On November 27, 2006, the Center transmitted by email to Abacus America Inc. dba Names4Ever a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On January 19, 2007, Abacus America Inc. dba Names4Ever a/k/a A transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the domain name is registered with A Internet Services, and that Respondent is listed as the registrant, and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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 January 26, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February�15, 2007. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent of default on February 16, 2007.
The Center appointed Sandra A. Sellers as the sole panelist in this matter on February�23, 2007. 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
Complainant Priority One Financial Services, Inc. owns the common law mark PRIORITY ONE FINANCIAL SERVICES, which it has used in commerce since 1987, for its finance and insurance outsource services and products, and other related services. Complainant currently provides services and products to the marine, RV, and power sports industries, but may expand to other industries in the future. Complainant has hundreds of dealers in forty-five states. Complainant has invested considerable resources in the promotion of its mark in various media. Complainant also holds the domain name , thorough which it promotes its services.
Respondent Blue Water Finance and Insurance Crew, Inc. was incorporated in July�2004. Respondent provides finance and insurance outsource services and related products to the marine, power sports, and RV industries. Respondent employs three of Complainant’s former employees, including Respondent Michael Cronin. Respondents registered the domain name in issue on May 9, 2006. The disputed domain name redirects users to Respondents’ web site “”, which markets Respondents’ finance and insurance outsource services and related products.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant alleges that it owns all rights in the common law mark PRIORITY ONE FINANCIAL SERVICES, and that consumers readily associate this mark with Complainant as a result of long standing use and promotion. Respondents’ domain name is confusingly similar or identical to Complainant’s mark, with the addition of the “.com” suffix.
Respondent does not have any relationship with Complainant and has not been licensed to use Complainant’s mark. Respondents registered and use the domain name in bad faith to divert traffic to Respondents’ website, which offers competing services and products to those offered by Complainant, and that these actions mislead the consuming public.
Complainant further alleges bad faith due to Respondents’ previous knowledge of Complainant’s mark, because Respondent Cronin is a former employee of Complainant, as are two other persons currently employed by Respondent.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to Policy paragraphs 4(a)(i-iii), for the Complainant to prevail and have the disputed domain name transferred to it, the Complainant must show that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant first must prove that it has rights in the domain name, and then must show that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
This Panel finds that Complainant has established common law rights in the mark PRIORITY ONE FINANCIAL SERVICES. Complainant has used the mark in commerce since 1987, for its finance and insurance outsource services and products, and other related services. Complainant currently provides services and products to the marine, RV, and power sports. Complainant has hundreds of dealers in forty-five states. Complainant has invested considerable resources in the promotion of its mark in various media. Complainant also holds the domain name , thorough which it promotes its services.
This Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and domain name. The only difference between Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name is the addition of the .com suffix. It long has been established that the .com suffix does not alter the domain name enough to prevent confusion.
Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark PRIORITY ONE FINANCIAL SERVICES in which the Complainant has established rights, and that the Complaint meets the first criterion of Policy paragraph 4(a).
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has not been granted any rights by Complainant to use Complainant’s mark. Furthermore, Respondent has chosen not to submit a response, and is apparently not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name. The sole purpose of the disputed domain name appears to be to divert potential customers to Respondent’s , which markets Respondent’s finance and insurance outsource services for the marine, RV and power sport industries.
Based on the case file, the Panel finds Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in using Complainant’s mark as part of Respondent’s domain name, under Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
This Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
It is undisputable that Respondent had direct knowledge of Complainant’s mark prior to registering the disputed domain name. The record indicates that Respondent Michael Cronin and two other employees of Respondent were employed by Complainant before becoming employed by Respondent Blue Water Finance and Insurance Crew, Inc.
This Panel also finds that Respondent has used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(b)(iv) states that there is bad faith if the Respondent has attempted “to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to [his/her] website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion, with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [his/her] website or of a product or service on [his/her] website or location.” As the undisputed record shows, the Respondents are using the disputed domain name to direct visitors to , which offers financial and insurance services directly competitive with Complainant’s financial and insurance services. Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondents sought or realized commercial gain by using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
For the reasons given above, the Panel finds that Complainant has established that Respondents have registered and used the domain names in bad faith under paragraph�4(a) of the Policy.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to Complainant.
Sandra A. Sellers
Sole Panelist
Dated: March 5, 2007
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy