TTT Moneycorp Limited v. Mebrat Biniam
Claim Number: FA1706001737316
Complainant is TTT Moneycorp Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Dan Smith of Safenames Ltd., United Kingdom. Respondent is Mebrat Biniam (“Respondent”), Germany.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <moneycorp.us>, registered with Uniregistrar Corp.
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.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 26, 2017; the Forum received payment on June 26, 2017.
On June 28, 2017, Uniregistrar Corp confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <moneycorp.us> domain name is registered with Uniregistrar Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Uniregistrar Corp has verified that Respondent is bound by the Uniregistrar Corp registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On June 29, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 19, 2017 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@moneycorp.us. Also on June 29, 2017, 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 July 21, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port 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 to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD 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 is a United Kingdom based company offering foreign exchange (bureau de change) services to individual and corporate customers. It operates in a number of countries and also provides bulk foreign notes and travel money services via a number of travel companies and airlines. Complainant registered the MONEYCORP mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 2,399,042, registered October 31, 2000). See Compl., at Attached Annex 3. Respondent’s <moneycorp.us> domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark as it contains the mark in its entirety and merely appends the country code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) “.us.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <moneycorp.us> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark. Complainant also twice sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent, who failed to respond both times. See Compl., at Attached Annex 11 & 12. Respondent also does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to market and provide services in the kitchen decoration and refurbishment industry, which is completely different than the financial services offered by Complainant. See Compl., at Attached Annex 13.
Respondent registered and uses the <moneycorp.us> domain name in bad faith as Respondent has a propensity to register domain names that correspond to other UK brands in the financial services industry. See Compl., at Attached Annex 17. Further, Respondent must have registered the disputed domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s MONEYCORP mark due to its registration in multiple countries; its highly recognized status around the world; and its global news coverage. See Compl., at Attached Annex 15 (major news source coverage on Complainant).
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Respondent registered the <moneycorp.us> domain name on December 16, 2016.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name; and that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
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 or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
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 (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.”).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name, <moneycorp.us>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark, MONEYCORP. Complainant has adequately pled its rights and interests in and to this trademark. Respondent arrives at the disputed domain name by merely adding the g TLD “.us” to the trademark. This is inadequate to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark.
As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel further concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name. Respondent has no license or permission to register the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use with the disputed domain name. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to market and provide services in the kitchen decoration and refurbishment industry, which is a completely different sector than the financial services offered by Complainant. See Compl., at Attached Annex 13. Using a confusingly similar domain to promote unrelated services can evince a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Vanderbilt Univ. v. U Inc., FA 893000 (Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (holding that the respondent did not have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name where it was redirecting Internet users to its own website promoting the respondent’s books unrelated to the complainant).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use with the disputed domain name and, therefore, has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name.
The Panel also finds that Respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name. Respondent registered the <moneycorp.us> domain name in bad faith, partly evinced by Respondent’s propensity for registering numerous domain names in bad faith. Owning numerous domain names that reflect famous marks can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Fandango, LLC v. 21562719 Ont Ltd, FA1209001464081 (Forum November 2, 2012) (“Respondent’s past conduct and UDRP history establishes a pattern of registered domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Complainant provides an exhibit that shows Respondent owns other domain names that correspond to UK brands in the financial services industry. See Compl., at Attached Annex 17. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith evinced by its propensity for engaging in such conduct.
The Panel also finds that Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s prior rights and interests in the trademark MONEYCORP. Given the fame of the mark and the totality of the circumstances, the Panel finds Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s rights and interests.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <moneycorp.us> domain name transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: July 22, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page