Popular, Inc. v. Popular Processing
Claim Number: FA0910001290730
Complainant is Popular,
Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Stephanie
M. Boomershine, of Michael W. O. Holihan, P.A.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <popularprocessing.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 October 21, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 22, 2009.
On October 22, 2009, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <popularprocessing.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 October 30, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 19, 2009 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@popularprocessing.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 25, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 <popularprocessing.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s POPULAR mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <popularprocessing.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <popularprocessing.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Popular, Inc., is a worldwide leader in the financial services industry including payment processing for businesses. Complainant owns a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the POPULAR mark (Reg. No. 2,991,584 issued September 6, 2005).
Respondent registered the <popularprocessing.com> domain name on August 24, 2007. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying third-party links to websites offering payment processing solutions for businesses in 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.
Complainant holds a trademark registration for the POPULAR
mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 2,991,584 issued September 6, 2005). The Panel finds that Complainant has
established rights in the POPULAR mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registration with the USPTO. See Reebok Int’l Ltd. v.
Respondent’s <popularprocessing.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s POPULAR mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent’s disputed domain name contains
Complainant’s mark, adds the term “processing,” and adds the generic top-level
domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds
that the term “processing,” when added to Complainant’s POPULAR mark in the
disputed domain name, creates a confusing similarity between Complainant’s mark
and the disputed domain name because the term “processing” has an obvious
relationship to Complainant’s offering of payment processing solutions for
businesses. See Kohler Co. v. Curley, FA 890812 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Mar. 5, 2007) (finding confusing similarity where <kohlerbaths.com>, the disputed domain name, contained the complainant’s mark in
its entirety adding “the descriptive term ‘baths,’ which is an obvious allusion
to complainant’s business.”); see also
Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Nat. Arb.
Forum June 8, 2007) (finding that by adding the term “security” to the
complainant’s VANCE mark, which described the complainant’s business, the
respondent “very significantly increased” the likelihood of confusion with the
complainant’s mark). In addition, the
Panel finds that the addition of a gTLD fails to distinguish a disputed domain
name from a registered mark. See Trip Network Inc. v.
Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that
the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis); see
also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding
that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect
the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or
confusingly similar). Therefore, the Panel
finds that Respondent’s <popularprocessing.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s POPULAR mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged Respondent does not have rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant is required to produce a prima facie case in support of its
allegations and then the burden shifts to Respondent to prove it possesses
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds Complainant has adequately
established a prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to
these proceedings, the Panel may assume Respondent does not have rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel, however, will examine the record
to determine whether Respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).
See 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).”); see also Am.
Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120
(Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's
failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”).
The Panel finds that although Respondent is listed as
“Popular Processing” in the WHOIS information, without affirmative evidence of
Respondent being commonly known by the disputed domain name, Respondent
lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
See Yoga Works, Inc. v. Arpita, FA 155461 (Nat. Arb.
Forum June 17, 2003) (finding that the
respondent was not “commonly known by” the <shantiyogaworks.com>
domain name despite listing its name as “Shanti Yoga Works” in its WHOIS
contact information because there was “no
affirmative evidence before the Panel that the respondent was ever ‘commonly
known by’ the disputed domain name prior to its registration of the disputed
domain name”); see also City News & Video v.
Citynewsandvideo, FA 244789 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 5, 2004) (“Although
Respondent’s WHOIS information lists its name as ‘citynewsandvideo,’ there is
no evidence before the Panel to indicate that Respondent is, in fact, commonly
known by the disputed domain name <citynewsandvideo.com> pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”).
Respondent is using the disputed domain name, which it registered on August 24, 2007, to
display links advertising third-party websites in competition with
Complainant’s offering of payment processing solutions for businesses. The Panel infers that Respondent is using the
disputed domain name to earn click-through fees, and thus finds that Respondent
has not made a bona fide offering of
goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Lin
Shun Shing, FA 205699 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that using a domain name to direct Internet traffic to a
website featuring pop-up advertisements and links to various third-party
websites is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under
Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶
4(c)(iii) because the registrant presumably receives compensation for each
misdirected Internet user); see
also Coryn
Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA
198959 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not
using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor
a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the respondent used the names to
divert Internet users to a website that offered services that competed with
those offered by the complainant under its marks).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring links to Complainant’s competitors in the payment processing industry. The confusingly similar disputed domain name likely attracts Internet users that are attempting to access Complainant’s website. Those Internet users are unknowingly redirected to the websites of Complainant’s competitors. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (“This Panel concludes that by redirecting Internet users seeking information on Complainant’s educational institution to competing websites, Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to intentionally divert Internet users to the associated websites, which display third-party links to competing websites. In cases such as this, the Panel presumes that Respondent is collecting click-through fees and attempting to profit by creating a likelihood of confusion between Complainant’s POPULAR mark and the confusingly similar disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is further evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
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 <popularprocessing.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: December 9, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum