The Complainant is Prosper Funding LLC, of San Francisco, California, United States of America (“United States” or “US”), represented by Robert P. Lord, United States.
The Respondent is Andy CZM, BH Groups, of Deerfield Beach, Florida, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 18, 2015. On June 18, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 19, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 23, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 13, 2015. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 14, 2015.
The Center appointed Sandra Sellers as the sole panelist in this matter on July 20, 2015. 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 is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Prosper Marketplace, Inc. They have been providing consumer loans, mainly through their website, “”, since 2006. Complainant offers short term loans to consumers. Complainant also is the United States’ first peer-to-peer lending marketplace.
Complainant is the owner of a US federal trademark registration for the mark PROSPER, registered January 22, 2008.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on December 23, 2014. The website at the disputed domain name offers financial services, particularly loans such as payday advances to consumers. This website contains many links to loans, including to “P Loans”, and “P Review”. Each of these links redirects to the website at the disputed domain name, not to Complainant’s website “”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant asserts that it has rights in the PROSPER trademark. It contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because of the similarity of its domain name and the disputed domain name, and services offered on the website at the disputed domain name. Complainant further alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that it registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest a respondent of a domain name, a complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(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 respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To satisfy paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.
As set forth above, Complainant owns a US federal trademark registration for the PROSPER mark. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PROSPER mark. It contains Complainant’s PROSPER mark in its entirety. The only difference between Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name is the addition of the generic terms “loans” and “reviews”. Numerous previous UDRP decisions have determined that the addition of terms that are clearly descriptive of products made by Complainant increases, rather than decreases, the likelihood of confusion given that “Internet users would assume that the disputed domain name combining the trademark and such terms had been registered by the Complainant or is related to the promotion of Complainant’s products.” See, Revlon Consumer Products Corporation v. Vladimir Sangcol,WIPO Case No. D2010-1774; Revlon Consumer Products Corporation v. IONE Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2010-1000; Forte (UK) Limited v. Eugenio CesChel,WIPO Case No. D2000-0283. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
As it is generally difficult for a complainant to prove the fact that a respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, previous UDRP panels have found it sufficient for a complainant to make a prima facie showing of its assertion where there has been no response.
Complainant has exclusive rights in the PROSPER mark and has not authorized Respondent to register and use the disputed domain name. Respondent is not affiliated with or related to Complainant, nor is Respondent licensed or authorized to use the PROSPER mark. Respondent is not known under the mark. Respondent has made no showing that it has any legitimate interest in using the disputed domain name or that it has made a bona fide offering of goods or services under the mark. On the evidence before the Panel, Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel is satisfied that Complainant has made a prima facie showing of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent is in default, and has not provided any evidence in its own favor.
The Panel finds that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and thus Complainant meets the second criterion of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
It is difficult to conceive that Respondent did not know of Complainant’s mark and products when Respondent registered the disputed domain name. As set forth above, Complainant’s PROPSER products are protected by a US federal trademark registration. Complainant uses the PROSPER mark for its loan products, which are primarily sold through Complainant’s
. All of this occurred before Respondent registered on December 23, 2014. Further, links for “P” on the website at the disputed domain name redirects to Respondent’s website. Based on these facts, this Panel infers that Respondent was aware or must have been aware of Complainant’s mark when Respondent registered the disputed domain name, and therefore registered it in bad faith. See, e.g., Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall,WIPO Case No. D2000-0574, in which the panel found it “inevitable that [r]espondent registered the domain names in full knowledge of [c]omplainant’s rights and interests.”
It is clear that Respondent, by using the disputed domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondents’ website or of a product or service on Respondent’s website, thus using Complainant’s marks in bad faith.
As set out above, the website at the disputed domain offers financial services, including consumer loans. This website also contains many links, including to “P Loans”, and “P Review”. Each of these links redirects to the website at the disputed domain name, not to Complainant’s website “”. The content appears designed to reinforce the Internet user’s impressions that the disputed domain name belongs to Complainant. The resulting confusion is grounds for a finding of bad faith use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See Pandora Jewelry, LLC v. ke ying, no, bing jin, fcgem, Wei Pang, na no and fcg, xiong mao,WIPO Case No. D2010-0642.
Complainant also alleges that there is a pattern of similar conduct by Respondent, in that “Complainant has a good faith belief that ‘Andy CZM’ is the same person or entity as the ‘Andy Tang’ in the attached decisions,” but doesn’t offer further explanation. It may be that Complainant’s allegation is correct; however, the Panel need not infer that these are the same individual or entity, or that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of similar conduct, nor is such a finding necessary to conclude that Respondent has used the disputed domain name 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 be transferred to the Complainant.
Sandra A. Sellers
Sole Panelist
Date: July 29, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy