Ace Cash Express, Inc. v. Cyberwire, LLC.
Claim Number: FA0802001153630
Complainant is Ace Cash Express, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kay
Lyn Schwartz, of Gardere Wynne Sewell, LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <aceamericacashexpress.net>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
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.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 25, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 27, 2008.
On February 26, 2008, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <aceamericacashexpress.net> domain name is registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Godaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On March 14, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 3, 2008 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@aceamericacashexpress.net by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 9, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
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 <aceamericacashexpress.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ACE CASH EXPRESS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <aceamericacashexpress.net> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <aceamericacashexpress.net> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Ace Cash Express, Inc., operates a business which provides a variety of financial services to customers. As part of this business, Complainant offers consumer loans to Internet users. Complainant registered its ACE CASH EXPRESS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on November 13, 2003 (Reg. No. 3,051,382).
Respondent registered its <aceamericacashexpress.net> domain name on July 8, 2007. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website which offers loan services that directly compete with Complainant’s business. Internet users are prompted to fill out an online loan application form with personal information and then they are presumably offered loans by Respondent or are referred by Respondent to a loan company which competes with Complainant.
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.
Complainant has provided extrinsic evidence of the
registration of its ACE CASH EXPRESS mark with the USPTO. The Panel finds this registration is
sufficient to establish Complainant’s rights in its ACE CASH EXPRESS mark
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See
Respondent’s <aceamericacashexpress.net>
domain name contains Complainant’s ACE CASH EXPRESS mark with the addition of
the geographical term “
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant asserts Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant must establish a prima facie case to support these assertions, and the Panel finds Complainant has done so in these proceedings. Once Complainant has produced a sufficient prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to establish it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent failed to submit a response to these proceedings, thus the Panel may infer Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence).
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website
which entices an Internet user to complete an online loan application
form. Presumably, Respondent or an
associate of Respondent then offers these Internet users consumer loan products
or services which directly compete with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds this use constitutes
disruption and is not a bona fide
offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i),
or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See
Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23,
2003) (“Respondent’s appropriation of [Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to market
products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and
services.”); see also Gardens Alive, Inc. v. D&S
Linx, FA 203126 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20,
2003) (finding that the respondent used a domain name for commercial benefit by
diverting Internet users to a website that sold goods and services similar to
those offered by the complainant and thus, was not using the name in connection
with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use).
The WHOIS information suggests Respondent is known as “Domains by Proxy, Inc.” The record indicates Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use its ACE CASH EXPRESS mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the <aceamericacashexpress.net> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s disputed domain name prompts Internet users to
fill out an online loan application in order to obtain loan products or
services which directly compete with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds Respondent’s use constitutes
disruption 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 July 18, 2000) (finding the respondent acted in bad faith by
attracting Internet users to a website that competes with the complainant’s
business); see
also Puckett, Individually v.
Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent has
diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation
of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
Respondent is using the website resolving from its
confusingly similar disputed domain name to provide Internet users with
competing loan products or services. Respondent
presumably profits from this use. Additionally,
Respondent’s use of Complainant’s ACE CASH EXPRESS mark creates a likelihood of
confusion regarding the source of the content resolving from the disputed
domain name. The Panel finds this is an
attempt by Respondent to profit from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s
mark. Therefore, the Panel finds
Respondent’s actions constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
The Panel finds 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 <aceamericacashexpress.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: April 23, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum