Dollar Financial Group, Inc. and National Money Mart Company v. The Loan Office, Inc.
Claim Number: FA0711001112559
Complainant is Dollar Financial Group, Inc. and National
Money Mart Company (“Complainant”),
represented by Hilary B. Miller, 72
Zaccheus Mead Lane, Greenwich, CT 06831-3752. Respondent is The Loan Office, Inc. (“Respondent”),
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <nationalmoneymart.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On November 27, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 17, 2007 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@nationalmoneymart.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <nationalmoneymart.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MONEY MART mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <nationalmoneymart.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <nationalmoneymart.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Dollar Financial Group, Inc. and its subsidiary
National Money Mart Company, provide international subprime consumer loans
under the MONEY MART mark. They use this
mark in advertising online and through other media mediums. The MONEY MART mark was registered by
Complainant with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on
Respondent registered the <nationalmoneymart.com>
domain name
on
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."
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
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.
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in
the MONEY MART mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the
mark with USPTO. See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent’s <nationalmoneymart.com> domain name is confusing
similar to Complainant’s MONEY MART mark pusuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because
Respondent’s disputed domain name incorporates the MONEY MART mark with a
generic term. See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have rights
or legitimate interests in the <nationalmoneymart.com> domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts
to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel
finds that Complainant has established a prima
facie case. Due to Respondent’s
failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel assumes that Respondent does not
have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA
118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent is using the <nationalmoneymart.com> domain name to redirect the Internet user to a commercial website which offers goods and services in competition with Complainant’s business. Respondent’s use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark to direct Internet users interested in Complainant’s products to a website that offers competing goods and services is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Stonybrook Invs., LTD, FA 100182 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 15, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where the respondent was using the complainant’s mark to redirect Internet users to a website offering credit card services unrelated to those services legitimately offered under the complainant’s mark).
Additionally, the record and WHOIS information indicates no
evidence suggesting Respondent is commonly known by the <nationalmoneymart.com> domain name. Also, there is no evidence in the record that
Respondent is authorized to use Complainant’s mark. Thus, Respondent has not established rights
or legitimate interests in the <nationalmoneymart.com> domain name
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶
4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent is using the <nationalmoneymart.com> domain name, which is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s MONEY MART mark, to direct Internet users
to a commercial website that offers goods and services that compete with
Complainant’s business. The Panel finds
that such use constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and is
evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See
S. Exposure
v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent is also using the <nationalmoneymart.com> domain name in bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent is using Complainant’s MONEY
MART mark to attract Internet users to a website which offers goods and
services of Complainant’s competitors.
This conduct is evidence that Respondent is attempting to profit by giving
the impression of being affiliated with Complainant.
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <nationalmoneymart.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: January 2, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum