The Complainant is eCapital Freight Factoring Corp., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Breakwater Law Group, United States.
The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States / Anna Hazare, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 5, 2020. On November 6, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 6, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 23, 2020 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 December 4, 2020. 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 December 9, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 29, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 8, 2021. The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on January 18, 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 is a financial services company based in the United States. It has used the mark ECAPITAL in connection with the provision of financial services since January 2014. Since that date, it has funded over USD 22 billion for over 17,800 clients in 81 different industries. The Complainant is the registered proprietor of United States trademarks number 5098285 ECAPITAL, registered on December 13, 2016 and number 4735905 eCAPITAL and device, registered on May 12, 2015. The Complainant is also the registrant of numerous domain name registrations comprising “ecapital”, including The Domain Name was registered on September 8, 2020. The Domain Name does not presently resolve to an active website, but from at least October 2020 resolved to a webpage headed “EcapitalLoans” and purporting to offer loan services. In early October 2020, the Complainant began receiving calls and emails from customers complaining that they had been contacted by text message and/or by telephone by representatives of “Ecapital” and/or “E-Capital Loans” with messages directing them to a website at the Domain Name and/or to the telephone number posted on the website. The Complainant’s customers consistently reported that the representatives already had some personal information of the customer and tried to obtain more personal and/or banking information. In at least one instance, the customer provided such information and their bank account was subsequently overdrawn by USD 6,700. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its ECAPITAL mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (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 The Complainant has uncontested rights in ECAPITAL (the “Mark”) both by virtue of its trademark registrations and as a result of the goodwill and reputation acquired through its widespread use of the Mark for over seven years. Ignoring the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.co” for this purpose, the Domain Name differs from the Mark only by the addition of the word “loans”. In the view of the Panel, this addition of a dictionary term does not detract from the confusing similarity between the Complainant’s mark and the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Panel is satisfied that the Domain Name was registered not for the purpose of a genuine offering of goods and services but to take advantage of the Complainant’s rights in the Mark to phish for and extract personal data and banking information for fraudulent purposes. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint or to take any steps to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In light of the nature of the Domain Name and the above finding, the Panel is in no doubt that the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in the Mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name. The Domain Name comprises the entirety of the Mark together with the word “loans”, alluding to a financial service provided by the Complainant. In the Panel’s view, the Respondent registered the Domain Name for commercial gain with a view to taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s rights in the Mark, by confusing Internet users into believing that the Domain Name was being operated by or authorized by the Complainant. The Respondent used the website previously at the Domain Name to extract personal data and banking information for fraudulent purposes. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The fact that the Domain Name does not presently resolve to an active website does not prevent such a finding. 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 Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: January 28, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy