The Complainant is E2Interactive, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Bates & Bates LLM, United States.
The Respondents are Aditya Singh, of Louisville, Kentucky, United States, and Andy Clark, of Louisville, Kentucky, United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names and are registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 11, 2017. On October 12, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On the same date, 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 October 17, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 6, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 7, 2017.
The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on November 29, 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 owns the registered trademark ONE VANILLA (the “Mark”) which the Complainant uses in connection with prepaid debit and stored value card services. The Mark was accepted for registration with the United States Patent and Trademark office on November 1, 2011 reflecting a first use in commerce of October 1, 2010. The Complainant has obtained numerous United States and international trademark registrations for stylized variations of the Mark and for the Mark in combination with generic prefixes and suffixes. The Complainant owns and operates the websites “”, “”, “”, and “”.
The disputed domain name was registered on March 30, 2017. The disputed domain name was registered on April 28, 2017. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contents the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Mark. The Complainant asserts that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the Mark or the disputed domain names as the Respondents were never authorized to use the Mark or the disputed domain name and the Respondents are not otherwise known by the Mark or disputed domain names. Finally, the Complainant asserts the Respondents registered and used the disputed domain names to deceptively lure unsuspecting Internet users to their websites for illicit purposes. B. Respondents
The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary issue: Consolidation of Multiple Respondents
The Complainant requests consolidation of proceedings regarding the disputed domain names. The Center determined the Complainant had established prima facie grounds sufficient to warrant accepting the Complainant’s consolidated amended Complaint subject to a final determination by the Panel. The Panel finds a sufficient unity of interest exists to consolidate and address in a single proceeding the disputed domain names set forth in the amended Complaint and accepts the amended Complaint as a consolidated proceeding. The disputed domain names are registered by the Respondents with the same registrar using the same address and similar telephone numbers. The disputed domain names were registered in close proximity. The Panel considers it more likely than not that the disputed domain names are subject to common control and accepts the Complainant’s request for consolidation. Speedo Holdings B.V. v. Programmer, Miss Kathy Beckerson, John Smitt, Matthew Simmons,WIPO Case No. D2010-0281. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complaint’s Mark. The disputed domain name merely brackets the Complainant’s Mark with two generic terms, namely “check” and “balance”, terms common in the banking and card industries. The disputed domain name merely adds and “s” to the Complainant’s Mark. Both disputed domain names omit the space between the words “one” and “vanilla” in the Complainant’s Mark. Collectively these minor and insignificant differences from the Mark in disputed domain names do not avert a finding of confusingly similarity with the Complainant’s Mark. Credit Karma, Inc. v. A Domain Privacy / Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd. / Protection Domain,WIPO Case No. D2017-1827.
The Complainant has met its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant specifically asserts that the Respondents were never authorized to use the Mark or the disputed domain names. The Respondents have failed to produce any evidence of a bona fide business or commercial activity utilizing the disputed domain names. It does not appear from the evidence presented that the Respondents are known by the disputed domain names. The use of the disputed domain names, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark, does not establish a bona fide service offering. E.J. McKernan Co. v. Texas International Property Associates,WIPO Case No. D2007-1499.
The Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The evidence is overwhelming that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. The disputed domain name resolves to an exact copy of the Complainant’s website that solicits Internet users to provide their credit card numbers to “Access your account and check your balance.”
The disputed domain name resolves to a website also soliciting information from site visitors to “Check my balance” while prominently featuring the Complainant’s Mark. Such conduct may be considered an attempt to derive illegitimate profit from Internet user confusion with the Complainant’s Mark and is also disruptive of the Complainant’s business. See Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Daniel Delcore,WIPO Case No. DLC2009-0001 (bad faith registration and use established when a fake website similar to that of a legitimate organization is used for identity theft and other nefarious activities).
The Complainant has met its burden of proof 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 disputed domain names, and , be transferred to the Complainant.
William F. Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: December 6, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy