The Complainant is CNU Online Holdings, LLC of Chicago, Illinois, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Foley & Lardner, United States.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp. of Nassau, Bahamas. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 1, 2017. On September 4, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 5, 2017, the Registrar 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 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 13, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 3, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 4, 2017.
The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on October 17, 2017. 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 company located in Chicago, Illinois, United States. It is a provider of financial services including online lending and personal loans. It is the owner of various registrations for the mark NETCREDIT including United States trademark number 4980020 for a stylized mark NETCREDIT, registered on June 14, 2016 in Class 36 for goods and services including arranging of loans and consumer lending services.
The disputed domain name was registered on June 28, 2017. According to evidence submitted by the Complainant, it has been used to resolve to a website headed “NetC” which appears to offer online lending services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant states that it registered the domain name in 2003 and that it has used the name and mark NETCREDIT since at least 2012 to brand its online lending services. It states that it has spent millions of dollars on advertising and promoting its business under that mark and that the mark has gained valuable goodwill and an outstanding reputation in the financial services sector.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for the purpose of a counterfeit website which impersonates the Complainant’s official website and makes extensive use of its NETCREDIT trademark, its domain name and its colour scheme. The Complainant produces evidence of such use by way of screen prints dated July 13, 2017. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is operating a misleading “lead generation” website, which collects loan application data from Internet users who believe they are dealing with the Complainant and then sells that data to the Complainant’s competitors.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is effectively identical to its trademark NETCREDIT and incorporates that mark in its entirety.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. In particular, the Complainant states that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its NETCREDIT trademark and the Respondent has not commonly been known by that name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is making neither legitimate noncommercial or fair use nor bona fide commercial use of the disputed domain name because it is using it for the purpose of a counterfeit website.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In particular, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to misdirect Internet users looking for the Complainant’s website to the Respondent’s counterfeit website for the purpose of monetary gain. The Complainant also argues that the Respondent has no legitimate connection with the “.co” (i.e., Colombia) Top-Level Domain and that the Respondent has provided false contact details (indeed the Complainant’s own contact details) in connection with the registration of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant must demonstrate that each of these elements is present, even though the Respondent has failed to participate in the proceeding. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has registered trademark rights in the name and mark NETCREDIT. The disputed domain name comprises that name in its entirety together with the Second-Level Domain “.com” and the Top-Level Domain “.co”. The Panel determines that neither of these domains is material to the comparison between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark and, therefore, that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complaint’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that the Complainant’s submissions referred to above give rise to a prima facie case for the Respondent to answer that it has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not participated in this proceeding and, in particular, has not disputed the Complainant’s submissions concerning its use of the disputed domain name for a misleading website which impersonates the Complainant’s official website. The Panel therefore accepts those submissions and, having no other evidence of rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent, concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Again, in the absence of any contradiction by the Respondent, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s submissions that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name for the purpose of a misleading website which impersonates the Complainant’s official website with a view to dishonestly gathering applicant data intended for the Complainant. The Panel finds, in particular, that the Respondent has intentionally used the disputed domain name to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of services on that website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name has been 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, , be transferred to the Complainant.
Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: October 31, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy