Complainant is Chime Financial, Inc., United States of America, (“United States” or “USA”) represented by Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., United States.
Respondent is Privacy Administrator, Anonymize, Inc., 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 January 2, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 10, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 14, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 3, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on February 4, 2020. The Center appointed M. Scott Donahey as the sole panelist in this matter on February 10, 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 Complainant is a Delaware corporation formed on August 20, 2012. Complaint, Annex 4, para. 3. Based in San Francisco, California, USA, Complainant provides Internet access to banking and financial products and services throughout the United States through downloadable software. The software enables users to access credit and debit card services and view and manage accounts, transfer money, and access banking services. Complaint, Annex 4, para. 4. Complainant has promoted its services under the mark CHIME since at least as early as March 2014. Complaint, Annex 4, para.5 and Exhibit B thereto. Complainant has used the mark CHIME in commerce since March 2014 and obtained a registration for the mark CHIME from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), registration no. 4728805 on April 28, 2015, for use with downloadable software which allows users to search, identify and redeem loyalty reward offers, for financial services, namely credit and debit card services and for loyalty program payment processing services. Complaint, Annex 4, para. 7. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 8, 2019. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a site at which Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale at the price of at least USD 13,331. On October 24, 2019, and November 18, 2019, Complainant received emails from third parties apparently related to the disputed domain name notifying Complainant that Complainant’s customers were sending personal information to the web site to which Respondent’s Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHIME trademark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the use of the disputed domain name, and that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and, (ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and, (iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name consists of Complainant’s registered trademark CHIME and the English word “bank” preceding the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) identifier “.org”. The addition of the English word “bank” to Complainant’s trademark CHIME does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, UDRP panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. In the present case Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and Respondent has failed to assert any such rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Respondent has not only used the trademark to resolve to a web site at which the disputed domain name is offered for sale at a price exceeding USD 13,000, but also has sent emails to Complainant alleging falsely that Respondent has received emails from Complainant’s customers sending personal information to the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. This, accompanied by the fact that Respondent registered the disputed domain name long after Complainant began continuous use of the trademark and long after Complainant registered the CHIME trademark, leaves the Panel in no doubt that Respondent has 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 M. Scott Donahey
Sole Panelist
Date: February 20, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy