The Complainant is Direct Financial Solutions LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Peterson Conners LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC, United States / Ramon Acevedo, The Berk Group, United States. 2. The Domain Name And Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 30, 2019. On December 30, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 30, 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 January 3, 2020 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 amendment to the Complaint on January 4, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 January 7, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 27, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 28, 2020. The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on February 4, 2020. 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 Since 2005, the Complainant has provided small short-term loans through its website “www.cashcentral.com”. The Complainant has made more than 500,000 loans in amounts ranging from USD 300 to USD 5,000 to customers in more than 24 state jurisdictions within the United States. The Complainant registered the mark CASH CENTRAL (the “Mark”) with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on July 18, 2006. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 2, 2018. The Respondent’s website offers so-called “payday loans”. The Respondent’s disputed domain name website has a similar font, color scheme, and look and feel as the Complainant’s website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark because the disputed domain name adopts the Mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic suffix “payday”. The Complainant disavows authorizing the Respondent to use the Mark or the disputed domain name and asserts that the Respondent is not known by the Mark or the disputed domain name in any bona fide commercial enterprise. Further the Complainant asserts the disputed domain was registered and used in bad faith to lure unsuspecting Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain or other invidious reasons, such as identify theft. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Mark entirely and merely adds the dictionary word “payday”. See Western Union Holdings, Inc. v. 35.com Technology Co., Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2008-0590 (transfer where the expression “paydayloans” was added to the complainant’s mark). Also, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’ registered trademark. Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. mei xudong,WIPO Case No. D2013-0150. The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark. The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Based on the above, in particular the use of a similar theme by the Respondent as the Complainant’s website, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The burden thus shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, e.g., by showing that the Respondent was known by, or had a legitimate business under the disputed domain name prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has specifically denied providing the Respondent with any license or authority to use the Mark. The Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of any bona fide use of the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent was ever commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s prominent adoption of words similar to the Complainant’s registered Mark on the website of the disputed domain name provides further evidence of the Respondent’s lack of rights of legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.5.3. The Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. The Panel finds on the evidence presented that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to falsely lure and attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark; the Respondent has dressed the Respondent’s website in a design and colors that mimic key aspects of the Complainant’s website; and at the disputed domain name’s website the Respondent purports to provide services virtually identical to the services offered by the Complainant. Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Jay Cannon,WIPO Case No. D2016-0452 (transferring The Panel finds the disputed domain was registered and used in bad faith. The Complainant has met its burden 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 name William F. Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: February 18, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy