The Complainant is Cash Converters Pty Ltd. of Perth, Australia, represented by Wrays, Australia.
The Respondent is The Trustee For The Capital Finance Trust. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 13, 2015. On February 13, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to Tucows Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 13, 2015, Tucows Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .au Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “.auDRP”), the Rules for .au Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .au Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 19, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 11, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 12, 2015.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on March 24, 2015. 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 operates a large pawn-broking business very well-known in Australia. It was originally established with one store in 1984 and now has over 150 stores in Australia and significant international operations. The Complainant’s trade mark registrations in Australia incorporating the words CASH CONVERTERS in a device date back to 1989 but its Australian reputation is such that it now has two registrations of the words CASH CONVERTERS alone with priority dates in 1999 for services including “financial and financing [sic] including loan services”.
The Respondent is an Australian entity with an Australian Business Number, identifying its location in Victoria. The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent in 2014.
The disputed domain name is in use. It points to a website which offers “cash converter loans online” and states, among other things “Don’t worry about your low credit score, we are Australia’s #1 specialist expert in helping people with bad credit.” 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant relies upon its registered trade marks and extensive reputation in its name. The Complainant states that the addition of the word “loans” in the disputed domain name does nothing to differentiate it from the Complainant’s name and trade marks, as this suffix is merely a generic word referring to the services offered by the Complainant as well as, supposedly, the Respondent.
The Complainant contends that there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the name “Cash Converters” and states that the Respondent is not one of its licensees.
The Complainant contends that the words “cash converters” are not descriptive of moneylending services and hence the disputed domain name could not have been acquired or used innocently.
The Complainant says that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services in that the use of the disputed domain name and the references to “cash converters loans” on the website of the Respondent, if in respect of any genuine business at all, can only be an attempt by the Respondent to provide services competing with those of the Complainant and to pass itself off as connected with or licensed by the Complainant. This assertion is supported by the observation that the statement on the Respondent’s website “we are Australia’s #1 specialist expert in helping people with bad credit” is a clear reference to the Complainant and the use of expression “your application will always be assessed by a person, not a computer” which features on the Respondent’s website has been derived from the Complainant’s website hosted at “”.
In all these circumstances, the Complainant also alleges that the disputed domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith, noting also that it is inconceivable that any Australian entity, at least, could register or use a domain name such as the disputed domain name without being aware of the Complainant and its business. B. Respondent
The Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that, in order to divest the Respondent of the disputed domain name, the Complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trade mark 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 or subsequently used in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that the Complainant has trade mark rights in CASH CONVERTERS based on its family of Australian trade mark registrations and long and substantial trading reputation. The Panel also accepts the Complainant’s submission that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark CASH CONVERTERS and the addition of “loans” in the disputed domain name does not distinguish it sufficiently to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established the first .auDRP element. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that the words “cash converters” are not descriptive of lending services. The Complainant has not licensed or authorized the Respondent to use the CASH CONVERTERS mark in any way, including in a domain name. The Respondent is clearly not known by this name and has not explained the use of these words in the disputed domain name and on its website. Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established the second .auDRP element. C. Registered or Subsequently Used in Bad Faith
For the reasons advanced by the Complainant, the Panel accepts that the Respondent must have at all material times known of the Complainant’s trade mark rights in CASH CONVERTERS and its reputation, and has acquired and is using the disputed domain name in order to exploit these trade mark rights and the Complainant’s considerable reputation to divert Internet users away from the Complainant to the Respondent’s business.
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established both that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The third .auDRP element is established. 7. Decision
For all 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.
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Date: March 26, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy