WIPO Domain Name Decision D2020-2473 for powerfinancertexas.com, powerfinancetexasloan.com

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION CPCWA Co, LLLP v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp. Case No. D2020-2473 1. The Parties

The Complainant is CPCWA Co, LLLP, United States of America (“United States”), internally represented.

The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp., Bahamas. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain names and are registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 23, 2020. On the following day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On September 25, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant of both disputed domain names 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 28, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 18, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 19, 2020.

The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on October 21, 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 the registered proprietor of United States trademark registration number 5,750,291 for POWER FINANCE TEXAS, registered on May 14, 2019 with a claim of first use in commerce on July 31, 2014, specifying consumer lending services in class 36. Exclusive use of the words “Finance Texas” is disclaimed except as shown in the trademark. That trademark registration remains current.

The Respondent is a privacy service. The Registrar did not disclose the identity of the underlying registrant or registrants.

The disputed domain names were registered on May 6, 2020. The disputed domain name formerly resolved to a website titled “POWER FINANCE Texas” with a form that allowed Internet users to submit loan inquiries. The Complainant asserts that the website at the disputed domain name was substantially similar to the website at the disputed domain name . At the time of this proceeding, the disputed domain names do not resolve to any active website; rather, they are passively held. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s POWER FINANCE TEXAS trademark.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. Additionally, the disputed domain names were used to impersonate the “Power Finance Texas” business operated by the Complainant.

The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The disputed domain names were used to impersonate the “Power Finance Texas” business operated by the Complainant and caused confusion and harm to consumers. The associated websites were operated for the financial benefit of the disputed domain name owners. A screenshot of the website associated with is provided. The website associated with was substantially similar. The websites have since been removed. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a complainant must prove each of the following elements:

(i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the POWER FINANCE TEXAS mark.

The disputed domain name incorporates the POWER FINANCE TEXAS trademark but intersperses a letter “r” between the letters “e” and “t”. This is an obvious spelling error as the letter “r” appears between those two letters on a QWERTY keyboard. This constitutes an example of “typosquatting”. The mark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel does not consider this additional letter capable of dispelling confusing similarity to the Complainant’s trademark. See Humana Inc. v. Cayman Trademark Trust,WIPO Case No. D2006-0073.

The disputed domain name incorporates the POWER FINANCE TEXAS mark as its initial element but adds the word “loan” after it. This additional term does not dispel the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s trademark. See Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0110.

The only other element in the disputed domain names is the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. As a technical requirement of registration, this element is generally disregarded in the comparison between a domain name and a trademark for the purposes of the first element of the Policy. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out the following circumstances which, without limitation, if found by the panel, shall demonstrate that the respondent has rights to, or legitimate interests in, a disputed domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

(i) before any notice to [the respondent] of the dispute, [the respondent’s] use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the [disputed] domain name or a name corresponding to the [disputed] domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) [the respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) [has] been commonly known by the [disputed] domain name, even if [the respondent has] acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) [the respondent is] making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the [disputed] domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

The disputed domain name formerly resolved to a website that impersonated the Complainant and offered services of a type identical to those offered by the Complainant. It is clear from the Complaint that the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademark. At the time of this proceeding, neither disputed domain name resolves to any active website. The Panel does not consider either of these uses to be a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. Nor are they a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.

There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.

In summary, the Panel considers that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondent failed to rebut that prima facie case because it did not respond to the Complainant’s contentions.

Therefore, based on the record of this proceeding, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainant has satisfied the second element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that certain circumstances, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. These circumstances are not an exhaustive list. The fourth circumstance is as follows:

“(iv) by using the [disputed] domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location.”

Both disputed domain names were registered in 2020, after the Complainant obtained its trademark registration for POWER FINANCE TEXAS. The operative element of each disputed domain name incorporates that trademark with the addition of a single letter or a related word. The website formerly associated with one of the disputed domain names impersonated the Complainant, prominently displaying the Complainant’s trademark and offering the same type of services as the Complainant’s. The disputed domain names were registered on the same day. These facts indicate to the Panel that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and targeted its POWER FINANCE TEXAS trademark at the time that it registered the disputed domain names.

With respect to the disputed domain name , the Respondent formerly used it in connection with a website that impersonated the Complainant and offered services identical to those offered by the Complainant. This disputed domain name contained a minor typographical error while the title of the associated website spelt the Complainant’s trademark correctly, which indicates that this disputed domain name was intended to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that these circumstances fall within the terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel notes that the use of this disputed domain name has changed and that it no longer resolves to an active website, but this change of use does not alter the Panel’s conclusion. In fact, it may be a further indication of bad faith.

With respect to the disputed domain name , the Respondent currently makes only passive use, but this does not preclude a finding of use in bad faith. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. This disputed domain name incorporates the POWER FINANCE TEXAS trademark, together with a description of the Complainant’s service, i.e., “loan”. The Respondent has registered and is using in bad faith the other disputed domain name that incorporates the same trademark. The Respondent provides no explanation of any potential use of this disputed domain name. In all these circumstances, the Panel considers that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant has satisfied the third element in paragraph 4(a) 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.

Matthew Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: October 29, 2020

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy