The Complainant is Unifund Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, United States.
The Respondent is George Washere, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 15, 2020. On September 16, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 17, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on September 22, 2020. 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 September 30, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 20, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 26, 2020. The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on November 17, 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 The Complainant is a United States corporation. Since 1986 it has been a leading manager and purchaser of distressed consumer receivables such as credit cards, consumer loans, student loans and mortgage deficiencies. It has carried on business under the UNIFUND trademark since its foundation. The Complainant is the proprietor of United States trademark number 2,308,699 UNIFUND registered on January 18, 2000. Since 1997, it has operated a website at the domain name The Domain Name was registered on May 15, 2019. It does not presently resolve to an active website, but at the time of filing of the Complaint it resolved to a website comprising a number of links to third party websites with hyperlinks to websites concerned with debt collection, debt management and debt recovery, including those of competitors of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its UNIFUND mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has uncontested rights in the UNIFUND mark, both by virtue of its trademark registration and as a result of the goodwill and reputation acquired through its use of the mark over some 25 years. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, the Domain Name comprises the entirety of the Complainant’s mark together with the word “my”. In the view of the Panel, this addition does not detract from the confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the UNIFUND mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has used the Domain Name not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but, directly or indirectly, for a webpage featuring pay-per-click links to third party websites offering financial services similar to those provided by the Complainant. The Domain Name does not presently resolve to an active website. There is no suggestion that the Respondent has ever been known by the Domain Name. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint or to take any steps to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. Moreover, the Domain Name carries a risk of implied affiliation. See section 2.5.1 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In light of the nature of the Domain Name, comprising the entirety of the Complainant’s distinctive trademark together with the word “my”, the Panel considers it most likely that the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in the UNIFUND mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name. The Respondent has used the Domain Name for pay-per-click links to third party websites. In the Panel’s view, the legitimate inference is that the Respondent undertook such activity with a view to commercial gain, intending to attract Internet users to the webpage to which the Domain Name resolved by creating a likelihood of confusion with the UNIFUND mark and as to the affiliation or endorsement of that webpage. Accordingly, the Panel considers that this amounts to paradigm bad faith registration and use for the purposes of the Policy. The fact that the Domain Name does not presently resolve to an active website does not prevent a finding of 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 Domain Name, Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: December 15, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy