ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION CNU Online Holdings, LLC v. Wris Yakmithithonglo Case No. D2024-4544 1. The Parties The Complainant is CNU Online Holdings, LLC, United States of America, represented by Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, United States of America. The Respondent is Wris Yakmithithonglo, Thailand. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with URL Solutions, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 5, 2024. On November 6, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 6, 2024, 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 (Registration Private) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 7, 2024, 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 amendment to the Complaint on November 11, 2024. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 November 12, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 2, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 3, 2024.
page 2 The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on December 6, 2024. 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 financial services company that provides personal loans to online consumers under the CASHNETUSA brand. The Complainant provides its services through its main website at “www.cashnetusa.com”. The Complainant owns trademark registrations for CASHNETUSA, including the United States of America trademark registration No. 5692962, CASHNETUSA (logo), filed on November 28, 2017, and registered on March 5, 2019, for goods in international classes 9, 36 and 42, and the International Trademark registration No. 1266636, CASHNETUSA (word), registered on February 12, 2015, for services in international class 36. The Domain Name was registered on September 11, 2020, and at the time of filing of the Complaint, lead to a website (the “Website”) where services similar to those of Complainant were offered. In addition, the Respondent was referring to itself as “CashNetUSA” and using the Complainant’s registered trademarks at the center of its homepage, in the content of the Website, and throughout the linked webpages. For example, the Respondent had a webpage linked to the Domain Name that contained the header “CashNetUSA.Com Upswing Approved”, which is similar to the Complainant’s CASHNETUSA UPSWING trademark registrations (e.g., United States of America trademark registration no. 5,698,607, registered on March 12, 2019, for services in international classes 9, 36, and 42). Currently, the Domain Name leads to an inactive website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name: (i) the 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 Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between
page 3 the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The dominant element of the mark (CASHNET) is reproduced within the Domain Name. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here “com” and “approved” and the omission of the term “USA” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is also disregarded, as TLDs typically do not form part of the comparison on the grounds that they are required for technical reasons only (Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn, WIPO Case No. D2017-0275). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. On the contrary, as the Complainant demonstrated, the Domain Name resolved to the Website purportedly offering services similar to those of the Complainant and impersonating the Complainant. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.
page 4 C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Because the Complainant’s mark was used and registered at the time of the Domain Name’s registration, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent had the Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain Name (Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO Case No. D2000-0226; Société des Produits Nestlé SA v. Telmex Management Service, WIPO Case No. D2002-0070). Furthermore, the Domain Name incorporates the dominant elements of the Complainant’s mark plus the additional terms “com” and “approved” respectively, that allude to loan approvals namely to the business offered by the Complainant, while the Complainant also maintained its website under . The Panel also notes that the Website mimicked that of the Complainant, prominently displaying its trademarks and purporting to be the Complainant. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. Given the Panel’s findings above and the totality of the circumstances, the current inactive state of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. /Marina Perraki/ Marina Perraki Sole Panelist Date: December 20, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy