The Complainant is MeridianLink, Inc., United States of America, (“United States”), represented by Thomas Horstemeyer, LLP, United States.
The Respondent is XXO X., Ding Dong, United States.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 20, 2021. On September 21, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 21, 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 September 24, 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 September 29, 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 September 30, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 20, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 29, 2021.
The Center appointed Kathryn Lee as the sole panelist in this matter on November 14, 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 BackgroundThe Complainant is a provider of loan origination software for use in initiating and processing credit and loan applications, as well as loan management and related services. The Complainant owns a trademark registration to the term MERIDIANLINK in the United States (United States Trademark MERIDIANLINK No. 3,766,634 registered on March 30, 2010 in class 42). The Complaint also owns the domain name
The Complainant appears to be an individual or entity with an address in the United States.
The disputed domain name was registered on July 14, 2021 and resolves to a registrar holding page.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MERIDIANLINK trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant asserts that it has used the mark MERIDIANLINK since as early as 1998 and obtained a trademark registration to the term in 2010. The Complainant further asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MERIDIANLINK mark since the first two letters “r” and “n” in lowercase appear like the letter “m”, and the rest of the letters are exactly the same.
The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and confirms that it has not authorized or licensed rights to the Respondent in any respect.
Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith. The Complainant explains that the Respondent sent a phishing email to one or more of the Complainant’s vendors from an email address generated from the disputed domain name, seeking transfer of funds to the Respondent’s own account. In addition, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent used a privacy service to mask its identity which is indicative of bad faith attempt to evade enforcement of legitimate rights or to obstruct proceedings commenced under the Policy.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant has demonstrated with supporting evidence that it has rights to the MERIDIANLINK mark. As for the disputed domain name, it is composed of the exact same letters as the Complainant’s mark MERIDIANLINK, except that the letter “m” is replaced by the letters “r” and “n”, which, when used together in that order in lowercase, look very similar to the letter “m”. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.9, establishes that “[a] domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element”. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
For the reasons mentioned above, the Panel finds that the first element has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsOn the basis of the present record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made the required allegations to support a prima facie case showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case has been established, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, with the burden of proof always remaining with the Complainant. However, the Respondent in this case has chosen to file no substantive Response to these assertions by the Complainant, and there is no evidence or allegation in the record that would warrant a finding in favor of the Respondent on this point.
Further, the Respondent used the disputed domain name in a phishing scheme, and use of a domain name for illegal activity can never confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.
For the reasons provided above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the second element has been established.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Panel finds that there is strong and clear evidence to find bad faith in this case.
First and foremost, the Respondent used the disputed domain name to perpetuate fraud by sending an email from the disputed domain name to at least one of the Complainant’s vendors, soliciting redirection of payment owed to the Complainant to the Respondent’s own bank account. The email from the Respondent was disguised as an email from the Complainant’s employee, even using the Complainant’s mark, address, and email address in the signature block. Using a domain name in a fraudulent activity is manifestly evidence of bad faith registration and use. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4 and section 3.4.
For the reasons given above, the Panel finds that the third element has been established.
7. DecisionFor 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,
Kathryn Lee
Sole Panelist
Date: November 28, 2021