The Complainant is Square, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0157829942, Canada / Jalen Brooks, Imperiumdiamond, 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 February 19, 2021. On February 22, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 22, 2021, 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 March 11, 2021, 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 March 11, 2021. 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 March 18, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 7, 2021. The Respondent contacted the Center on March 12, and 18, 2021, but did not submit a formal Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Commencement of Panel Appointment on April 26, 2021. The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on May 7, 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 provides mobile payment solutions. One of its products is the Cash App mobile application, and it provides that app under the CASH APP trademark, which is the subject of a number of trademark registrations in jurisdictions around the world. For example, the Complainant owns United States Reg. No. 5911568 for the CASH APP mark, which registered on November 19, 2019. The disputed domain name was registered on May 6, 2020. The disputed domain name previously resolved to a website (the “Respondent’s website”) that purported to offer tutorials on how to make illegal use of credit cards in order to carry out unauthorized transactions via the Internet, making use of Cash App – a process commonly referred to as “carding”. The Respondent’s website made prominent use of the Complainant’s CASH APP trademark, color scheme, and logos. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. On March 11, 2021, responding to the notification that the Complainant had filed an amended Complaint, the Respondent sent an email message to counsel for the Complainant (copying the Center) that contained only the following disjointed sentence: “What is this I sold a store named Imperiumdiamond to someone else but I don’t understand this Cashapp thing?” On March 18, responding via email to the Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding, the Respondent sent another email generally denying responsibility for the registration of the disputed domain name and indicating an indifference as to whether the Respondent should continue to own it. This message stated in part that: “Anyways they [the Complainant] can choose what they want to do I’m cool with it because I didn’t even make a website like that.” 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (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. The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant clearly has rights in the mark CASH APP, evidenced by the registration certificates for that mark. The disputed domain name, for purposes of this first element, is identical at the second level to the Complainant’s mark. The presence of the generic Top-Level domain (“gTLD”) “.shop” does not prevent a finding of identicalness or confusing similarity. Accordingly, the Complainant has succeeded under this first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant will be successful under this element of the Policy if it makes a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and if that prima facie showing remains unrebutted by the Respondent. The Complainant asserts, among other things, that: - the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services; - the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor has the Respondent been otherwise authorized by the Complainant to make any use of its CASH APP trademark, in a domain name or otherwise; - the Respondent cannot assert that prior to any notice of this dispute it was using, or had made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy; - there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name as contemplated by paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy; and - the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. These assertions establish the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Respondent has not meaningfully answered the Complainant’s assertions, and, seeing no basis in the record to overcome the Complainant’s prima facie showing, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this second Policy element. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith It is implausible to believe that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s CASH APP mark when it registered the disputed domain name – the CASH APP mark was immediately used on the associated website, and provided information on how to commit fraud using the app. These facts are sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has successfully met this third UDRP element. 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, Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: May 21, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy