E-Loan, Inc. v. Mountain States Mortgage
Claim Number: FA0806001203425
Complainant is E-Loan, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Michael
W. O. Holihan, of Michael W. O. Holihan, P.A.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <eloancenters.com>, 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 June 10, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 11, 2008.
On June 10, 2008, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <eloancenters.com> 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 June
18, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
July 8, 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@eloancenters.com by
e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 15, 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 <eloancenters.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s E-LOAN.COM mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <eloancenters.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <eloancenters.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, E-Loan, Inc., offers a range of financial services including mortgages and loans. Complainant maintains a significant presence on the Internet through its website that resolves from the <eloan.com> domain name, which provides a means to inform the public and offer its services. Complainant has used its E-LOAN and E-LOAN.COM marks for online lending and mortgage services since October of 1996 and has since funded over $32 billion in mortgage and consumer loans. Complainant holds registrations for the E-LOAN and E-LOAN.COM marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (respectively, Reg. No. 2,885,929, issued September 21, 2004; Reg. No. 3,003,136, issued October 4, 2005).
Respondent registered the <eloancenters.com> domain name on November 28, 2007. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that contains various hyperlinks to several third-party websites, some of which are in direct competition 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.
The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently established rights in the E-LOAN.COM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO. See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”); see also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) ("Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.").
In addition, the Panel finds that the <eloancenters.com> domain name is
confusingly similar to the E-LOAN.COM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because it
contains Complainant’s entire mark and adds the generic term “centers” despite
the omission of the hyphen that is present in Complainant’s mark. See Oki Data Ams., Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,
D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001) (“[T]he fact that a domain name wholly
incorporates a Complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish
identity [sic] or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the
addition of other words to such marks”); see also Caterpillar Inc. v.
Quin, D2000-0314 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the disputed domain
names <caterpillarparts.com> and <caterpillarspares.com> were
confusingly similar to the registered trademarks CATERPILLAR and CATERPILLER
DESIGN because “the idea suggested by the disputed domain names and the
registered trademarks is that the goods or services offered in association with
[the] domain name are manufactured by or sold by the Complainant or one of the
Complainants [sic] approved distributors. The disputed trademarks contain one
distinct component, the word Caterpillar”); see
also Nat’l Cable Satellite Corp. v.
Black Sun Surf Co., FA 94738
(Nat. Arb. Forum June 19, 2000) (holding that the domain name
<cspan.net>, which omitted the hyphen from the trademark spelling,
C-SPAN, is confusingly similar to the complainant's mark).
The Panel finds that
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant must first establish a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <eloancenters.com> domain name. Once this prima facie case has been established, the burden then shifts to Respondent and Respondent must prove that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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 G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
Respondent is using the <eloancenters.com> domain name to display several hyperlinks to various third-party websites, some of which are in direct competition with Complainant. The Panel infers that Respondent earns click-through fees and, therefore, has not made a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under 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 MSNBC Cable, LLC v. Tysys.com, D2000-1204 (WIPO Dec. 8, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the famous MSNBC mark where the respondent attempted to profit using the complainant’s mark by redirecting Internet traffic to its own website).
In addition, Respondent’s WHOIS information does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the <eloancenters.com> domain name; there is no other information in the record to indicate otherwise. Furthermore, Complainant asserts that Respondent is not authorized to use its E-LOAN.COM mark or seek registration of any domain name that incorporates its mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <eloancenters.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Cimock, FA 126829 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 13, 2003) (“Due to the fame of Complainant’s mark there must be strong evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name in order to find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). However, there is no evidence on record, and Respondent has not come forward with any proof to establish that it is commonly known as CELEBREXRX or <celebrexrx.com>.”); see also 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).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Based on the uncontested evidence presented, the Panel finds
that Respondent receives click-through fees from the hyperlinks displayed on
its website that resolves from the <eloancenters.com>
domain name to third-party websites, some of which are in direct competition
with Complainant. This practice creates
a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed
domain name and corresponding website. The
Panel finds this practice to constitute bad faith registration and use under
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See TM Acquisition
Corp. v. Warren, FA 204147 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (“Although Complainant’s principal website is
<century21.com>, many Internet users are likely to use search engines to
find Complainant’s website, only to be mislead to Respondent’s website at the
<century21realty.biz> domain name, which features links for competing
real estate websites. Therefore, it is
likely that Internet users seeking Complainant’s website, but who end up at
Respondent’s website, will be confused as to the source, sponsorship,
affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website.”); see also Kmart v. Khan,
FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if the respondent
profits from its diversionary use of the complainant's mark when the domain
name resolves to commercial websites and the respondent fails to contest the
complaint, it may be concluded that the respondent is using the domain name in
bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
In addition, the Panel
finds that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to divert Internet users
to its website in order to disrupt Complainant’s business because it provides
hyperlinks to third-party websites, some of which are in direct competition
with Complainant. The Panel finds this
disruption of Complainant’s business to constitute bad faith use and
registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
See Mission KwaSizabantu v. Rost, D2000-0279 (WIPO June 7,
2000) (defining “competitor” as “one who acts in opposition to another and the
context does not imply or demand any restricted meaning such as commercial or
business competitor”); see also Disney Enters., Inc.
v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov.
11, 2003) (“Respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to
Complainant's mark to divert Internet users to a competitor's website. It is a
reasonable inference that Respondent's purpose of registration and use was to
either disrupt or create confusion for Complainant's business in bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”).
The Panel concludes 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 <eloancenters.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: July 29, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum