MoneyGram International, Inc. v. Aspen Hills
Claim Number: FA1311001530542
Complainant is MoneyGram International, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Sheldon H. Klein of Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A., Washington D.C., USA. Respondent is Aspen Hills (“Respondent”), Idaho, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bitcoinmoneygram.com>, registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC.
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.
David S. Safran, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 18, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on November 19, 2013.
On November 21, 2013, GODADDY.COM, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <bitcoinmoneygram.com> domain name is registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GODADDY.COM, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GODADDY.COM, LLC 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 November 26, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 16, 2013 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@bitcoinmoneygram.com. Also on November 26, 2013, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on December 12, 2013.
On December 20, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David S. Safran 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Parties’ Contentions
i. Complainant, MoneyGram International, Inc., is a leading global payment services company. Its major products include global money transfers, bill payment solutions, financial paper products, and prepaid debit cards.
ii. Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the MONEYGRAM mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,127,954, registered January 13, 1998).
iii. Respondent’s domain name <bitcoinmoneygram.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MONEYGRAM mark because it contains the mark and simply adds a generic term “bitcoin.”
i. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name.
ii. Respondent is not in any way affiliated with Money, nor is Respondent licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s registered mark.
iii. Respondent misleadingly diverts consumers and tarnishes the MONEYGRAM mark specifically in order to attract users to Respondent’s webpages. It then seeks to obtain access to their personal and financial information, which could be indicative of a phishing scheme.
iv. The current version of Respondent’s site offers to sell the domain name.
i. Respondent intentionally registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.
ii. The current version of Respondent’s website offers to sell the domain name.
iii. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain results in the intentional diversion of consumer traffic away from Complainant and toward Respondent in an attempt to gain access to consumers’ personal and financial information.
iv. Respondent has even used Complainant’s MONEYGRAM mark and globe with arrows logo in the text of its website.
v. Respondent had constructive notice of Complainant’s rights in the mark at the time Respondent registered the domain name. In addition, there is evidence that Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s rights in its registered mark, as Respondent has advertised money transfer and bill payment services on the site and also displayed the MONEYGRAM mark and Complainant’s globe with arrows logo.
i. Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
i. Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
i. Respondent consented to the transfer but requested that Complainant pay him the total sum of one hundred fifty dollars and zero cents ($150.00) to compensate him for his out-of-pocket expenses and personal time in exchange for transference of the domain.
Preliminary Issue—Consent to Transfer
Respondent consents to transfer the <bitcoinmoneygram.com> domain name to Complainant but has requested that Complainant pay Respondent $150.00 USD in return. However, after the initiation of this proceeding, GODADDY.COM, LLC placed a hold on Respondent’s account and therefore Respondent cannot transfer the disputed domain name while this proceeding is still pending. As a result, the Panel finds that, in a circumstance such as this where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name, but instead agrees to transfer the domain name in question, the Panel may decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <bitcoinmoneygram.com> domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
Therefore, the Panel has decided to forego the traditional UDRP analysis, although, because Respondent did not challenge any of complainant's positions, they are taken as conceded and find that, combined with the evident lack of interest in maintaining the domain, transfer of the domain without regard to the request for payment is warranted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bitcoinmoneygram.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant
__________________________________________________________________
David S. Safran, Panelist
Dated: December 26, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page