Moneytree, Inc. v. Technical Support
Claim Number: FA1106001391475
Complainant is Moneytree, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kathleen T. Petrich of Graham & Dunn PC, Washington, USA. Respondent is Technical Support (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <moneytreinc.com>, registered with Fabulous.com Pty Ltd.
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.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 1, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on June 1, 2011.
On June 1, 2011, Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <moneytreinc.com> domain name is registered with Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On June 7, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 27, 2011 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@moneytreinc.com. Also on June 7, 2011, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 28, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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 <moneytreinc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MONEYTREEINC.COM mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <moneytreinc.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <moneytreinc.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Moneytree, Inc., owns and operates more than 120 retail financial service stores throughout the western United States and Canada. Complainant offers consumer lending services including payday lending, check cashing, debit and stored value cards, as well as other financial services. Complainant owns several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for the following marks: MONEY TREE (e.g., Reg. No. 2,166,890 issued June 23, 1998); MONEY TREE & Design (e.g., Reg. No. 2,203,612 issued November 17, 1998); and MONEYTREEINC.COM & Design (Reg. No. 3,799,378 filed October 19, 2009; issued June 8, 2010).
Respondent, Technical Support, registered the <moneytreinc.com> domain name on May 19, 2010. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring a search engine and third-party links to competing financial service companies.
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 submitted evidence to show that it owns trademark registrations with the USPTO for its MONEYTREEINC.COM & Design mark (Reg. No. 3,799,378 filed October 19, 2009; issued June 8, 2010). The Panel finds that such registration is evidence that Respondent has rights in its mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) that date back to October 19, 2009, which is the original filing date with the USPTO. See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”); see also Hershey Co. v. Reaves, FA 967818 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007) (finding that the complainant’s rights in the KISSES trademark through registration of the mark with the USPTO “date back to the filing date of the trademark application and predate [the] respondent’s registration”).
Complainant further argues that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MONEYTREEINC.COM mark where the disputed domain name merely removes one letter “e” from the mark. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s <moneytreinc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MONEYTREEINC.COM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive); see also Pfizer Inc. v. BargainName.com, D2005-0299 (WIPO Apr. 28, 2005) (holding that the <pfzer.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s PFIZER mark, as the respondent simply omitted the letter “i”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <moneytreinc.com> domain name. Complainant is required to make a prima facie case in support of these allegations under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Once the Complainant has produced a prima facie case the burden shifts to Respondent to show they do have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. See Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”); see also Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that once a prima facie case has been established by the complainant, the burden then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)). The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case. Due to the Respondent’s failure to respond to these proceedings the Panel may assume Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. See Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent fails to respond); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (“Respondent's failure to respond not only results in its failure to meet its burden, but also will be viewed as evidence itself that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). Nonetheless, the Panel will continue to evaluate the evidence on record to determine whether Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the <moneytreinc.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant further contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s mark. The Panel notes that the WHOIS information for the <moneytreinc.com> domain name identifies the registrant as “Technical Support,” and there is no further evidence on record showing that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that without affirmative evidence of Respondent being commonly known by the disputed domain name, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed 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 IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant has submitted evidence to show that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website that features a search engine and various third-party links to financial services websites and businesses. Complainant contends that such use of a confusingly similar domain name is evidence that Respondent is not using the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent, in using the disputed domain name as a pay-per-click venture, is not using the domain name for 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 Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble, FA 918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name was not 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 also ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. Albloushi, FA 888651 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 26, 2007) (rejecting the respondent’s contention of rights and legitimate interests in the <bravoclub.com> domain name because the respondent was merely using the domain name to operate a website containing links to various competing commercial websites, which the panel did not find to be 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 pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business by displaying various third-party links to financial services websites and companies. Complainant alleges that Respondent’s use of the domain name in such manner results in a loss of business for Complainant, and is evidence of bad faith. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s use of the domain name 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).”).
Further, Complainant contends that Respondent receives commercial benefit from its use of the domain name as a pay-per-click website. Complainant alleges that each time an Internet user clicks on one of the links on Respondent’s website, that Respondent receives payment for referring users to that website. Complainant argues that such use in conjunction with a confusinlgy similar domain name is further evidence of bad faith. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s use of the domain name as a pay-per-click website, without any explanation from Respondent, is further evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Velv, LLC v. AAE, FA 677922 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <arizonashuttle.net> domain name, which contained the complainant’s ARIZONA SHUTTLE mark, to attract Internet traffic to the respondent’s website offering competing travel services violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).
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 <moneytreinc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: July 11, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page