LendingTree, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp.
Claim Number: FA1512001654032
Complainant is LendingTree, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Christiane S. Campbell of Duane Morris LLP, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp. (“Respondent”), Bahamas.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <www-lendingtree.com>, registered with Internet Domain Service Bs Corp.
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 26, 2015; the Forum received payment on December 26, 2015.
On December 29, 2015, Internet Domain Service Bs Corp. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <www-lendingtree.com> domain name is registered with Internet Domain Service Bs Corp. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Internet Domain Service Bs Corp. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet Domain Service Bs Corp. 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 December 30, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 19, 2016 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@www-lendingtree.com. Also on December 30, 2015, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 22, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 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
Complainant uses the LENDINGTREE mark in connection with its business in the financial services industry as a lead generator and mortgage broker. Complainant has registered the LENDINGTREE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,873,272, registered Nov. 9, 2010). Respondent’s <www-lendingtree.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the LENDINGTREE mark as it incorporates the mark entirely, while appending the “www-” prefix and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) suffix.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the <www-lendingtree.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the <www-lendingtree.com> domain. Further, Respondent has not operated with any bona fide offering of goods or services or with any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent utilizes the disputed domain name to hold itself out to the public as a competing loan service, offering cash payday loans and even citing Complainant’s home site, <lendingtree.com>.
Respondent has registered and used the disputed <www-lendingtree.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name jeopardizes the goodwill associated with Complainant and the LENDINGTREE mark. More specifically, while Respondent cites to Complainant’s home site in the context of payday loans, this information is false as Complainant does not offer instant or direct “payday loans.” Respondent collects Internet user information and submits it to third party lenders who then contact Internet users. Through this process, Respondent commercially profits, showing bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name with actual or at least constructive knowledge of the LENDINGTREE mark and Complainant’s rights therein.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, LendingTree, LLC, uses the LENDINGTREE mark in connection with its business in the financial services industry as a lead generator and mortgage broker. Complainant has registered the LENDINGTREE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,873,272, registered Nov. 9, 2010). Respondent’s <www-lendingtree.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the LENDINGTREE mark.
Respondent, Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., registered the disputed domain name on May 19, 2014. Respondent utilizes the <www-lendingtree.com> domain name to hold itself out to the public as a competing loan service, offering cash payday loans and even citing Complainant’s home site, <lendingtree.com>.
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."
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.
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(f), 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.”).
Complainant has rights in the LENDINGTREE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration the USPTO. See T-Mobile USA, Inc. dba MetroPCS v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA 1627542 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 9, 2015) (finding that Complainant has rights in the METROPCS mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.).
Respondent’s <www-lendingtree.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the LENDINGTREE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as it incorporates the mark entirely, while appending the “www-” prefix and the “.com” gTLD suffix.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the <www-lendingtree.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the <www-lendingtree.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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).
Respondent has not operated with any bona fide offering of goods or services or with any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). Instead, Respondent utilizes the disputed domain name to hold itself out to the public as a competing loan service, offering cash payday loans and even citing Complainant’s home site, <lendingtree.com>. See Florists’ Transworld Delivery v. Malek, FA 676433 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 6, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <ftdflowers4less.com> domain name to sell flowers in competition with the complainant did not give rise to any legitimate interest in the domain name).
Respondent has registered and uses the disputed <www-lendingtree.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name jeopardizes the goodwill associated with Complainant and the LENDINGTREE mark. While Respondent cites Complainant’s home site in the context of payday loans, this information is false as Complainant does not offer instant or direct “payday loans.” Respondent reportedly collects Internet user information and submits it to third party lenders who then contact Internet users. Through this process, Respondent presumably commercially profits, showing bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). In Hess Corp. v. GR, FA 770909 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2006), it was determined that the respondent demonstrated bad faith registration and use because it was attempting to acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users through a confusingly similar domain name.
Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the LENDINGTREE mark. Therefore, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <www-lendingtree.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: February 4, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page