The Complainant is Curo Intermediate Holdings Corp. of Wichita, Kansas, United States of America, represented by Berkowitz Oliver LLP Law Firm, United States of America.
The Respondent is Dhruvin Shah of Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India1. 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 23, 2016. On June 24, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 27, 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 proceedings commenced on June 30, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 20, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 26, 2016.
The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on August 5, 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 Curo Intermediate Holdings Corp., a Delaware corporation.
The Complainant has proven to be the owner of several U.S. registrations for the trademark SPEEDY CASH.
The Complainant is, inter alia, the owner of:
U.S. registration No. 3563682 for the mark SPEEDY CASH registered on January 20, 2009;
U.S. registration No. 2966547 for the mark SC SPEEDY CA$H registered on July 12, 2005;
U.S. registration No. 2677082 for the mark SPEEDY CASH registered on January 21, 2003.
The disputed domain name was registered on February 1, 2016.
The Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SPEEDY CASH registered trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests whatsoever with respect to the disputed domain name; and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order for the Complainant to obtain a transfer of the disputed domain name, paragraphs 4(a)(i) – (iii) of the Policy require that the Complainant must demonstrate to the Panel 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 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
The Complainant has established that it has prior rights in the trademark SPEEDY CASH and has stated that the addition of the generic term “American” to the SPEEDY CASH trademark is not sufficient to avoid confusion.
This Panel agrees with the Complainant’s thesis and previous UDRP decisions, which affirmed that the addition of a generic term (be it a geographical expression and/or a descriptive term of goods or services) is not sufficient to avoid confusion but, on the contrary, in some circumstances this addition can even increase the chances of confusion.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the burden of proof with respect to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
This Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, and the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use or register any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor any use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services for the reasons described in section 6.C below. In addition, the Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the name “Speedy Cash” or by a similar name. Moreover, the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions, alleging any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to display a copycat website of the Complainant’s website. The Panel can think of no possible legitimate justification for this use, and the Respondent has not come forward with any explanation.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel, on the basis of the evidence presented, accepts and agrees with the Complainant’s contentions that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and that it has been used in bad faith.
Indeed, the Complainant gives several sound bases for its contention that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and that it has been used in bad faith.
Particularly relevant is the Complainant’s unchallenged assertion (which the Panel accepts) that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name to display a copycat website of the Complainant’s legitimate website and that this is an inherently abusive use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. 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 cancelled.
Fabrizio Bedarida
Sole Panelist
Date: August 10, 2016
1 The Panel has chosen not to name the privacy service employed by the Respondent as a party to this proceeding.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy