Ace Cash Express, Inc. v. Nattawee Arthiwate
Claim Number: FA1106001392664
Complainant is Ace Cash Express, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kay Lyn Schwartz of Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Nattawee Arthiwate (“Respondent”), Thailand.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <acecheckcashing.org>, 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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 8, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on June 8, 2011.
On June 9, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <acecheckcashing.org> 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 disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On June 9, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 29, 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@acecheckcashing.org. Also on June 9, 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 July 6, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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 <acecheckcashing.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ACE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <acecheckcashing.org> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <acecheckcashing.org> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Ace Cash Express, Inc., provides check cashing and other financial services to its customers. Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations with United States Patent and Trademark Office for the ACE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,155,964 issued May 12, 1998). Complainant uses the mark as its brand name in the check cashing industry.
Respondent, Nattawee Arthiwate, registered the disputed domain name on January 5, 2010. The disputed domain name resolves to a site offering links to third-parties which are Complainant’s competitors in the check cashing and payday loan industry.
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 claims that it has established its rights in the ACE mark by registering the mark with the USPTO. The registration of a mark with a federal trademark authority sufficiently establishes rights in a mark. See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established its rights in the ACE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by registering that mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,155,964 issued May 12, 1998).
Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ACE mark. The disputed domain name contains the entire mark while adding the terms “check” and “cashing,” which describe Complainant’s business, and the generic top-level domain “.org.” The Panel finds that adding terms descriptive of Complainant’s business and a gTLD are not enough to overcome a finding of confusing similarity. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ACE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Eastman Chem. Co. v. Patel, FA 524752 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2005) (“Therefore, the Panel concludes that the addition of a term descriptive of Complainant’s business, the addition of a hyphen, and the addition of the gTLD ‘.com’ are insufficient to distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark.”); see also Sea World, Inc. v. JMXTRADE.com, FA 872052 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 12, 2007) (“[Since] [t]he top-level gTLD is merely a functional element required of every domain name, the <shamu.org> domain name is identical to the SHAMU mark under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established.
Under Policy 4(a)(ii), Complainant is required to prove that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds Complainant has made a prima facie case showing of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name so the burden now lies with Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See 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)). Respondent has not only failed to rebut the prima facie case made by Complainant but has also failed to file any submissions in this action which allows the Panel to assume it lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See American 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.”). Nonetheless, the Panel will still examine the record in its entirety according to the factors enumerated in Policy ¶ 4(c) prior to making a determination on Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as “Nattawee Arthiwate,” which this Panel finds does not suggest a connection between Respondent and the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record); see also Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant also argues that Respondent is not engaging in a bona fide offering of goods or services or making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a site which offers links to Complainant’s competitors in the check cashing and small loan financing industry. The Panel finds that resolving the disputed domain name to a site offering links to Complainant’s competitors does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See 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)); see also Skyhawke Techns., LLC v. Tidewinds Group, Inc., FA 949608 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2007) (“Respondent is using the <skycaddy.com> domain name to display a list of hyperlinks, some of which advertise Complainant and its competitors’ products. The Panel finds that this use of the disputed domain name does not constitute 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).”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established.
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s disputed domain name disrupts its business thereby establishing evidence of bad faith registration and use. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a site which offers links to third-party sites, most of which are Complainant’s competitors. Internet users may arrive at these linked sites and then utilize a competitor’s services rather than Complainant’s. The Panel finds that this use does disrupt Complainant’s business providing affirmative evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent used the disputed domain name to operate a commercial search engine with links to the complainant’s competitors); see also Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names).
Complainant also alleges that Respondent is gaining commercially from the disputed domain name also constituting bad faith registration and use. The disputed domain name resolves to a site offering links to Complainant’s competitors in the disputed payday loan and cash checking arena. For offering these links, Respondent presumably generates click-through fees for each Internet user diverted. The Panel finds that this constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes); see also 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).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <acecheckcashing.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: July 11, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page