The Complainant is RocketGate PR, LLC of Dorado, Puerto Rico, Unincorporated Territory of the United States of America, represented by Hatton, Petrie & Stackler APC, United States of America (“US”).
The Respondent is WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama / Deniz Ozan of Muş, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 13, 2019. On March 13, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 14, 2019, 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 March 19, 2019 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 March 27, 2019.
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 March 28, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 17, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 18, 2019.
The Center appointed Adam Samuel as the sole panelist in this matter on April 30, 2019. 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 provides electronic processing of credit card transactions and electronic payments. It promotes this through the domain name , registered on June 18, 2007, and registered on December 6, 2007. The Complainant owns a US trademark ROCKETPAY, registration number 4887756, registered on January 19, 2016; and a US trademark ROCKETGATE, registration number 3943938, registered on April 12, 2011.
The disputed domain name was registered on July 22, 2018. The disputed domain name resolves to a website offering payment services using the Complainant’s name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
These are the Complainant’s contentions.
The disputed domain name resolves to a website offering financial payment and transaction services similar to those offered on the Complainant’s “www.” website. On March 11, 2019, the Complainant’s counsel sent a cease-and-desist email to an address listed on the website to which the dispute domain name resolves.
The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not fair in that it falsely suggests the Respondent’s affiliation with the trademark owner. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s mark verbatim. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is taking an unfair advantage of and abusing the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant’s mark is widely known in its sector and is highly specific and the Respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the Complainant’s trademark. Examination of the website linked to the disputed domain name demonstrates its technical sophistication. The Respondent must have registered the disputed domain name knowing of the Complainant’s trademark. 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 name is 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 name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.live”. The gTLD is irrelevant here because it does not affect the meaning of the disputed domain name and is a standard registration requirement. See section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Without it, one is left with the Complainant’s trademark. For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not called “Rocketpay” or anything similar. There is no evidence that the Complainant has ever authorized the Respondent to use its trademark. For these reasons, and in the absence of any response on this point, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The disputed domain name is the Complainant’s trademark and a gTLD. The Complainant’s trademark ROCKETPAY consists of two words “rocket” and “pay” which have no particular connection to each other. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves uses the Complainant’s trademark to offer services that are very similar to those provided by the Complainant. The Panel concludes from these two points that the Respondent knew about the Complainant’s activities and set out to use its trademark to provide a service that competes with the Complainant. The Respondent is continuing to do this.
For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using 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.
Adam Samuel
Sole Panelist
Date: May 8, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy