The Complainant is Sociedad de Ahorro y Credito Credicomer, Sociedad Anonima, El Salvador, represented internally.
The Respondent is Milen Radumilo, Romania. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 30, 2020. On October 30, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the respective Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name and with an additional domain name. On November 2 and 8, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 10, 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 amended Complaint on November 13, 2020, withdrawing the additional domain name and amending the Respondent information. 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 November 23, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 13, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent of its default on December 29, 2020. The Center appointed Dennis A. Foster as the sole panelist in this matter on January 5, 2021. 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 an established financial institution based in El Salvador. It conducts business under the service mark CREDICOMER, which is registered with the appropriate trademark authority in El Salvador (i.e., Centro Nacional de Registros, “CNR”, Registration No. 14552, registered on November 16, 2011). The Respondent registered the disputed domain name, - Incorporated in El Salvador, the Complainant operates as a financial institution in that country. The Complainant is listed on the El Salvador stock exchange and has received positive notice in Forbes Magazine. - Since 2007, the Complainant has done business under the CREDICOMER service mark. Later, the Complainant also registered the service mark CREDICOMER EN LINEA to conduct its services. - The disputed domain name, - The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is in no way related to the Complainant. The Respondent is not commonly known as the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name neither for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor in a fair use manner. Instead, the disputed domain name is used by the Respondent for a phishing website in order to gain access to private Internet user information and to generate revenue for the Respondent. - The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name is being used by the Respondent for various illegitimate phishing activities. For example, the disputed domain name was used to host a website that attempts to lure Internet users with low credit scores into believing that they can obtain loans by paying fees online and filling out forms meant to appear to be linked to the Complainant. Furthermore, the Salvadorian Credit Protection Agency issued an alert for the public to be wary of any website linked to the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Pursuant to Policy paragraphs 4(a)(i)-(iii), the Panel may find for the Complainant and grant it a transfer of the disputed domain name, - the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and - the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has submitted evidence to the Panel that the Complainant has a valid registration for its CREDICOMER service mark with the proper trademark authority in El Salvador (Centro Nacional de Registros, “CNR”), thus confirming to the Panel that the Complainant has sufficient rights in that mark to satisfy Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.2.1; and Hola S.A. and Hello Limited v. Idealab,WIPO Case No. D2002-0089 (“The holding of a registered mark is sufficient for the purposes of the Policy.”). While the Panel determines that the Complainant’s CREDICOMER mark is completely included in the disputed domain name Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a service mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Prior Policy panels have consistently held that a complainant need show only a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name before the burden of producing direct evidence of those rights or legitimate interests passes onto the respondent. See, WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1; and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. WalMart Careers, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2012-0285 (“According to the consensus view of UDRP Panels, if such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). In addition to proving to the Panel’s satisfaction that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CREDICOMER service mark, the Complainant has clearly asserted that the Respondent is in no way affiliated with or related to the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant has met the minimum standard required to sustain a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Having failed to file a Response, the Respondent offers no evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. Nonetheless, the Panel will review the record for evidence that could support a claim by the Respondent to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In doing so, the Panel will consider any reasonable evidence presented in the Complaint as true. See, Allianz, Compañía de Seguros y Reaseguros S.A. v. John Michael,WIPO Case No. D2009-0942 (“...asserted facts that are not unreasonable will be taken as true and Respondent will be subject to the inferences that flow naturally from the information provided by the Complainant.”); and The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang,WIPO Case No. D2002-1064 (“...the Panel’s decision is based upon the Complainant’s assertions and evidence and inferences drawn from the Respondent’s failure to reply.”). The Complaint furnishes ample evidence, accepted by the Panel, that the disputed domain name was used by the Respondent to conduct a phishing scam to obtain private information and fees from Internet users who might seek loans from the Complainant or other lenders. As the Complainant has clearly not authorized such activity, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is not used by the Respondent in “a bona fide offering of goods and services” per paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. See, Wesco Aircraft Hardware Corp. v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245095601 / Gulf Guns and Gear,WIPO Case No. D2019-2131 (“...the Panel finds that purpose of registering the [disputed] Domain Name was to engage in an email scam or a phishing scheme, none of which is a bona fide offering of goods or services.”); and CMA CGM v. Diana Smith,WIPO Case No. D2015-1774 (“...such phishing scam cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services...”). Furthermore, the Panel believes that it is highly unlikely that the Respondent, Milen Radumilo, has been commonly known as the disputed domain name Finally, as noted above, the Panel accepts as true that the Respondent is engaged in a phishing scam for its own financial benefit by seeking payments and private information from unaware Internet users. As a result, the Panel concludes that Policy paragraph 4(c)(iii) is inapplicable as well because the disputed domain name is not being used in a “legitimate noncommercial or fair use” manner. Since the Panel cannot apply Policy paragraph 4(c) nor find other evidence in the record to support the Respondent’s claim to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Panel determines that the Complainant’s prima facie case must prevail. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Though providing four distinct circumstances to support a finding that a disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, the list found in Policy paragraph 4(b) is not exhaustive of the circumstances that could sustain such a finding, as concluded by many prior Policy panels. See, for example, HSBC Finance Corporation v. Clear BlueSky Inc. and Domain Manager,WIPO Case No. D2007‑0062 (“The examples of bad faith registration and use set forth in paragraph 4(b) are not meant to be exhaustive of all circumstances from which such bad faith may be found.”). As the Panel noted previously, the Complainant has supplied sufficient evidence to conclude that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for illegitimate phishing purposes. This includes evidence of a website attached to the disputed domain name that solicited private information and online fees from unsuspecting Internet users. The Panel determines that this kind of phishing scam clearly constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. See, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. v. Abrahim Hashim,WIPO Case No. DCO2019-0017 (“The registration of a domain name in furtherance of phishing scams supports a finding of bad faith registration and use.”); and BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd v. Domains By Proxy LLC / Douglass Johnson,WIPO Case No. D2016-0364 (“...the use of an email address associated with the disputed domain name, to send a phishing email for the purposes of dishonest activity is in itself evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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, Dennis A. Foster
Sole Panelist
Date: January 19, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy