Braviant Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / GuardPrivacy.org
Claim Number: FA2109001964570
Complainant is Braviant Holdings, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Lindsay M.R. Jones of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / GuardPrivacy.org ("Respondent"), Hong Kong.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <balancecredit-ntf.com>, registered with Dynadot, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 21, 2021; the Forum received payment on September 21, 2021.
On September 22, 2021, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <balancecredit-ntf.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On September 22, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 12, 2021 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@balancecredit-ntf.com. Also on September 22, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 14, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules, and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a financial services provider in the United States. Complainant adopted the BALANCE CREDIT trademark in 2013 and has used it since then in connection with services related to personal loans and lines of credit. Complainant owns a United States trademark registration for BALANCE CREDIT in standard character form, issued in 2014, and also asserts common law rights in the mark.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <balancecredit-ntf.com> in May 2021. The domain name is being used for a website that offers services similar to, and in direct competition with, those offered by Complainant. Complainant asserts that Respondent is also using the website to "phish" for personal information from Complainant's customers. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by and has not been given permission to use Complainant's BALANCE CREDIT mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <balancecredit-ntf.com> is confusingly similar to its BALANCE CREDIT mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a), and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <balancecredit-ntf.com> incorporates Complainant's registered BALANCE CREDIT trademark, omitting the space and adding a hyphen, the letters "NTF," and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Braviant Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / GuardPrivacy.org, FA 1958073 (Forum Sept. 6, 2021) (finding <balancecredit-member.com> and <balancecredit-5k.com> confusingly similar to BALANCE CREDIT); Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Joel Rosenzweig, RegC, D2021-1221 (WIPO June 28, 2021) (finding <geiconft.com> confusingly similar to GEICO); Morgan Stanley v. Joseph Masci, FA 1940938 (Forum May 10, 2021) (finding <nftmorganstanley.com> confusingly similar to MORGAN STANLEY). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used for a misleading website that promotes services similar to and in competition with those offered by Complainant. Such use is unlikely to give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Braviant Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / GuardPrivacy.org, FA 1958073, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Braviant Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / GuardPrivacy.org, FA 1772426 (Forum Mar. 20, 2018) (same).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered BALANCE CREDIT mark and is using it for a website that offers directly competing services, in what the Panel infers to be an attempt to pass off as Complainant. The domain name is held in the name of what the Panel presumes to be a privacy registration service acting on behalf of an undisclosed beneficial owner (possibly the same entity as in prior cases involving the same parties), and Respondent is not identified on the website other than by the disputed domain name. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Braviant Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / GuardPrivacy.org, FA 1958073, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Braviant Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / GuardPrivacy.org, FA 1772426, supra (same). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <balancecredit-ntf.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: October 18, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page