The Complainant is Credit Karma, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America (“USA” or “United States”), represented by Reed Smith LLP, USA.
The Respondent is Whois Privacy, Whois Privacy (enumDNS dba) of Bettembourg, Luxembourg / MattK Karrar of Beijing, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with EuroDNS S.A. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 26, 2017. On May 29, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 30, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 7, 2017 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 11, 2017.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 12, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 2, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 3, 2017.
The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on July 6, 2017. 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 a United States company that since 2007 or early 2008 has been the provider of a free credit and financial management platform under the name “Credit Karma” from its website at “” (the “Complainant’s Website”). From the Complainant’s Website, the Complainant provides consumers with credit data including credit scores and personalized financial recommendations. The Complainant has over 60 million members in the United States and Canada and in 2015 the Complainant generated USD 350 million in revenue.
The Complainant is the owner of a trade mark in the United States for the words “credit karma” (the “CREDIT KARMA Mark”), with the CREDIT KARMA Mark first being registered in the USA on August 23, 2011 with a stated date of first use on February 1, 2008 (registration no. 4,014,356) for “monitoring consumers’ credit reports; providing advertisement and promotion services for others based on credit reports”.
The Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on June 13, 2009 and redirects to a website (the “Creditify Website”) at “” that appears offer services identical to and in direct competition to the Complainant, including providing consumers with credit scores and financial recommendations. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions:
(i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CREDIT KARMA Mark;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant is the owner of the CREDIT KARMA Mark, having registered the CREDIT KARMA Mark in the USA. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the the CREDIT KARMA Mark, containing the the CREDIT KARMA Mark in its entirety and replacing the first letter “c” with “k”.
There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent is not commonly known as the Domain Name. There is no evidence, since the Respondent registered the Domain Name, of the Respondent’s use of, or 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 or for a legitimate noncommercial purpose. The Domain Name redirects to a website which promotes and sells competitive products and services which evidences a lack of rights or legitimate interests under the Policy, see Newcastle Permanent Building Society Limited v. LaPorte Holdings,WIPO Case No. D2005-0511.
The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The CREDIT KARMA Mark was well-known at the time of registration of the Domain Name. The Respondent is also using the Domain Name in bad faith by registering and using a domain name that is virtually identical to the CREDIT KARMA Mark to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website and/or a commercial website with competing products and services, by creating a likelihood of confusion. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark.
The Complainant is the owner of the CREDIT KARMA Mark, having registrations for the CREDIT KARMA Mark as a trade mark in the USA.
The Domain Name consists of the CREDIT KARMA Mark in its entirety with the replacement of the first “c” with the letter “k”. This amendment creates a word that is phonetically identical and would be read as having an identical meaning to the CREDIT KARMA Mark. The substitution of a single letter by the Respondent does not create a domain name with an inherently different meaning or association and does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Panel finds the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CREDIT KARMA Mark. Consequently the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
To succeed on this element, a complainant must make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. If such a prima facie case is made out, then the burden of production shifts to the respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy enumerates several ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name:
“Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or 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; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial 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 Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way. It has not been authorized by the Complainant to register or use the Domain Name or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating the CREDIT KARMA Mark or a mark similar to the CREDIT KARMA Mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name or any similar name. There is no evidence that the Respondent has used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or a bona fide offering of goods and services.
The Respondent is using the Domain Name to redirect visitors to a website that operates under the name “Creditify” and appears to offer services that are similar to and in direct competition to the Complainant. The use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CREDIT KARMA Mark to redirect to a website of a differently-named competitor of the Complainant does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has had the opportunity to put on evidence of its rights or legitimate interests, including submissions as to why its conduct amounts to a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name under the Policy. In the absence of such a response the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or
(ii) The Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) The Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the Domain Name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location. (Policy, paragraph 4(b)).
The Panel finds that it is highly likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its reputation in the CREDIT KARMA Mark at the time the Respondent registered the Domain Name. While the date of registration of the Domain Name predates the registration of the CREDIT KARMA Mark, the Complainant had been trading under the CREDIT KARMA Mark for at least 18 months prior to the registration of the Domain Name. The Respondent has provided no explanation for its registration of the Domain Name. Given the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to redirect to the Creditify Website, an entirely differently named website that provides services in direct competition to the Complainant and the absence of any alternative explanation, it is highly unlikely that the Respondent chose to register the Domain Name unless there was an intention to create a likelihood of confusion between the Domain Name and the Complainant and its CREDIT KARMA Mark.
As noted above, the Creditify Website provides services in direct competition to the Complainant. The Respondent’s actions in registering a Domain Name that is phonetically identical to the CREDIT KARMA Mark and use it to redirect visitors to the site of a direct competitor amounts to the registration and use of a Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. Alternatively by using the Domain Name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s CREDIT KARMA mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location. As such the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Nicholas Smith
Sole Panelist
Date: July 10, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy