Oportun, Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp.
Claim Number: FA1903001833497
Complainant is Oportun, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Ryan Compton of DLA Piper LLP (US), Washington DC, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp. (“Respondent”), Bahamas.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <opportunloans.com>, <oportunpersonalloans.com>, and <oportuneloans.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.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 11, 2019; the Forum received payment on March 11, 2019.
On March 13, 2019, Internet Domain Service Bs Corp. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <opportunloans.com>, <oportunpersonalloans.com>, and <oportuneloans.com> domain names are registered with Internet Domain Service Bs Corp. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 March 18, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 8, 2019 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@opportunloans.com, postmaster@oportunpersonalloans.com, and postmaster@oportuneloans.com. Also on March 18, 2019, 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 April 10, 2019, 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 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a leading technology-powered provider of personal loans and a certified Community Development Financial Institution. Complainant lends money to hardworking, low-to-moderate income individuals to help them move forward in their lives, demonstrate creditworthiness, and establish the credit history they need to access new opportunities. Complainant has rights in the OPORTUN mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 4,999,148, registered July 12, 2016). See Compl. Annex B. Respondent’s <opportunloans.com> and <oportuneloans.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as they each add one letter (either “p” or “e”) along with the term “loans” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Respondent’s <oportunpersonalloans.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it merely adds the terms “personal” and “loans” along with the “.com” gTLD.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <opportunloans.com>, <oportunpersonalloans.com>, and <oportuneloans.com> domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark. Further, Respondent uses the domain names to divert Internet users who are seeking Complainant’s services.
Respondent registered and uses the infringing domain names in bad faith. Respondent passively holds the <oportunpersonalloans.com> domain name. See Compl. Annex H. Further, Respondent engaged in typosquatting by purposefully registering a misspelling of Complainant’s OPORTUN mark in the <opportunloans.com> and <oportuneloans.com> domain names. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark given Complainant is a leading provider of personal loans, Complainant’s services are highly regarded, and Respondent domain names contain additional terms reflective of Complainant’s goods/services.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Respondent registered the <opportunloans.com>, <oportunpersonalloans.com>, and <oportuneloans.com> domain names on January 7, 2019, November 29, 2018, and August 16, 2018, respectively.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names; and that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names.
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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark. Complainant has adequately plead its rights and interests in and to the trademark OPORTUN. Respondent arrives at the disputed domain names by merely adding a “p” or an “e,” the generic words “personal” and “loans,” and the top level domain name “.com” to Complainant’s trademark. This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s trademark.
As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel further finds that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names. Respondent has no right, permission or license to register the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Further, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
As such, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or the disputed domain names.
The Panel also finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names. It appears that Respondent passively holds the <oportunpersonalloans.com> domain name. Inactively holding a confusingly similar domain name, here, is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA1503001608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) (“Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpage associated with this disputed domain name from December 7, 2018, which appears to solicit personal loan services. See Compl. Annex H. Complainant does not provide any evidence to further the passive holding argument. Merely alleging a violation of the Policy but with no supporting evidence requires the Panel to disregard this argument.
Complainant also argues that Respondent engaged in typosquatting by purposefully registering a misspelling of Complainant’s OPORTUN mark in the <opportunloans.com> and <oportuneloans.com> domain names. A finding of typosquatting can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. IS / ICS INC, FA 16070016833 (Forum Aug. 11, 2016) (“Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant, such as Respondent, deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the string in a domain name. The conniving registrant wishes and hopes that Internet users will inadvertently type the malformed trademark or read the domain name and believe it is legitimately associated with the target trademark. In doing so, wayward Internet users are fraudulently directed to a web presence controlled by the confusingly similar domain name’s registrant.”). Here, Respondent added one letter to Complainant’s mark in each domain name, an additional letter “p” in one and the letter “e” in the other, and appended the term “loans” to each domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting which is evidence of bad faith use and registration.
Further, Complainant argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the OPORTUN mark at the time of registering the disputed domain names. Complainant contends that Respondent’s knowledge can be inferred given Complainant is a leading provider of personal loans, Complainant’s services are highly regarded, and that the disputed domain names contain additional terms reflective of Complainant’s goods/services. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s prior rights and interests in and to the trademark OPORTUN.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <opportunloans.com>, <oportunpersonalloans.com>, and <oportuneloans.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: April 12, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page