National Arbitration Forum




Cash America International, Inc. v. Cyclicom Holdings LTD

Claim Number: FA0912001299224



Complainant is Cash America International, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Eric Michael Vazquez, Texas, USA.  Respondent is Cyclicom Holdings LTD (“Respondent”), United Kingdom.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with, 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.


Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 15, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 16, 2009.


On December 18, 2009,, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> domain name is registered with, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name., Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the, 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 December 21, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of January 11, 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 by e-mail.


A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on January 11, 2010.


On January 19, 2009, the Forum granted the Parties request that the proceedings be stayed pursuant to the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 6(b)(i).  


On January 22, 2009, the Forum granted Complainant’s Request to Lift the Stay.


On January 12, 2010, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.



Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.



A. Complainant


Complainant is a leading provider of specialty financial services.


Complainant provides specialty financial services to individuals in the United Kingdom through its domain name, <>.


Complainant also owns and uses the domain name <> to direct Internet users to its primary website at <>, registered in 2004.


Complainant uses the mark QUICKQUID for, among other things, check cashing and cashing of pay checks; money lending; short term consumer loan services; short term loans; payday advances; payday loan services; money orders; electronic funds transfer; and financial overdraft protection.


Complainant owns the QUICKQUID mark, for which it has obtained trademark regis-trations (U.K. Reg. No. 2458778A and U.K. Reg. No. 2458778B), and those registrations predate Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name.


These mark registrations have not been abandoned, cancelled or revoked.


Complainant has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in advertising and promotion of the QUICKQUID mark in print media, television and the Internet.


Based on its trademark registrations and extensive use, Complainant owns the exclusive right to use the QUICKQUID mark in connection with its business.


Respondent registered the <>domain name on or about April 5, 2009.


This disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's QUICKQUID mark.


Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.


Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.


Respondent is not sponsored by or legitimately affiliated with Complainant in any way, and Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant's mark in a domain name.


Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect unsuspecting Internet users to a website featuring generic links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant's business.


Presumably, Respondent receives pay-per-click fees from these linked websites.


Respondent is not using the domain name to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as allowed under the Policy.


Respondent has ignored Complainant's attempts to resolve this dispute outside of

the pending administrative proceeding.


The disputed domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.


B. Respondent


Respondent, in e-mail communications with the National Arbitration forum, has recited as follows:  “[W]e do not oppose this application, and will sign and return any forms needed to transfer this domain name to the complainant.”



Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following to obtain from a Panel an order that a domain name be transferred:


i.         the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;

ii.       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

iii.      the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.


Notwithstanding the foregoing, Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”


Further, Policy ¶ 3(a) provides for the transfer of a domain name registration upon the written instructions of the parties to a UDRP proceeding without the need for otherwise required findings and conclusions (see Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat. Ar. Forum Jan. 13, 2004;  see also Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jun. 24, 2005)). 



Respondent’s response in this proceeding does not contest the material allegations of the Complaint, and, in particular it does not contest Complainant’s request that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. Rather, in written communications, it expressly consents to such transfer.  Thus the parties have effectively agreed in writing to a transfer of the subject domain name from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings.


Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <> domain name be forthwith TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.




Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: February 12, 2010



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum