The Complainant is Green Dot Corporation of Pasadena, California, United States of America ("United States"), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0149195152 of Toronto, Canada / Cesar Polanco of Bronx, New York, United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc.
The disputed domain names , , and are registered with GoD, LLC. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on December 13, 2017. On December 13, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar, Tucows, a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name . On December 13, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 22, 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 December 27, 2017. The amended Complainant included additional disputed domain names. Accordingly, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars, a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On January 2, 2018, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
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 January 4, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 24, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on January 26, 2018.
The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on March 1, 2018. 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 widely recognized provider of reloadable prepaid debit cards and cash reload processing services in the United States. It owns trademark registrations in several jurisdictions around the world, including a registration for the mark MONEYPAK, United States Registration No. 3,249,875, which was registered on June 5, 2007.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain names at various times from May to December 2017. It has used the disputed domain names and to establish websites that copy the Complainant's website that is found at . The disputed domain names and resolved to parking websites. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant alleges, among other things, that the purpose of the websites found at the disputed domain names is to fool unsuspecting visitors into divulging their personal information by using the login portions of the websites to collect users' login and password credentials. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
All three of these elements have been met in this case. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark. See, Britannia Building Society v. Britannia Fraud Prevention,WIPO Case No. D2001-0505. In this case, the disputed domain names contain the Complainant's trademark MONEYPAK in its entirety. The additional words "customer service", "customer help" and "reloaded card" in certain of the domain names in this context do not distinguish those disputed domain names from the Complainant's mark. Similarly, the addition of the Top-Level Domains ".com" and "." to the disputed domain names does not avoid confusing similarity.
A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. See, Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. Voguechen,WIPO Case No. D2014-0657. The Complainant has demonstrated its rights because it has shown that it is the owner of the registered mark MONEYPAK as noted above.
Accordingly, the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and has prevailed on this first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by assessing whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names shifts to the Respondent.
The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. By failing to respond to the Complaint, the Respondent did not overcome its burden of production demonstrating rights or legitimate interests, and no other facts in the record tip the balance in the Respondent's favor.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy instructs respondents on a number of ways they could demonstrate rights or legitimate interests ("you" and "your" in the following refers to the particular respondent):
(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.
In this case, there are several indicators concerning the Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor is there any evidence in the record showing the Respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before any notice of the dispute.
Accordingly, the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in regard to the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Policy requires the Complainant to establish that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. The presence of the trademark MONEYPAK with the additional words "customer service", "customer help", and "reload card" in the corresponding disputed domain names, of which some are being used to potentially scam pre-paid card visitors, reinforces the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark. Using the disputed domain names to establish websites that are identical to the Complainant's site, and allegedly using those sites to engage in phishing of sensitive information, are strong examples of bad faith under the Policy. In addition, the use of the disputed domain names and to resolve to parking websites, in the circumstances of this case, does not prevent a finding of registration and use in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied this third element 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.
Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: March 14, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy