Moneytree, Inc. v. Christopher Hood / Webthulu
Claim Number: FA1405001557624
Complainant is Moneytree, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kathleen T. Petrich of Miller Nash LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is Christopher Hood / Webthulu (“Respondent”), Nevada, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <moneytreeink.com>, which is registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electron-ically on May 5, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on May 5, 2014.
On May 5, 2014, GODADDY.COM, LLC confirmed by e-mail message addres-sed to the National Arbitration Forum that the <moneytreeink.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 May 6, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 27, 2014 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@moneytreeink.com. Also on May 6, 2014, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addres-ses 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 which is compliant with the requirements of the Policy and its associated Rules, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 30, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
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
Complainant uses the MONEYTREEINC.COM mark in connection with the marketing of its financial services offerings.
Complainant holds a registration for the MONEYTREEINC.COM mark, on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Registry No. 3,799,378 registered June 8, 2010).
Respondent registered the <moneytreeink.com> domain name on or about September 1, 2010.
The <moneytreeink.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MONEYTREEINC.COM mark.
Respondent has never been commonly known by, or done business as, the <moneytreeink.com> domain name.
Respondent uses the <moneytreeink.com> domain name to send Internet users to a website located at <cashloans.pro> where Respondent offers financial ser-vices in competition with the business of Complainant.
Respondent is not listed as a lender with the State of Nevada, where Respond-ent allegedly operates.
Respondent has no right to use the <moneytreeink.com> domain name.
Respondent both registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding which is compliant with the requirements of the Policy or its associated Rules. However, in an e-mail message addressed to the National Arbitration Forum, Respondent has recited, in pertinent part, as follows:
I did not prepare a response in hopes of expediting a transfer of the URL to the complainant as easily as possible ….
… I previously offered a quick and easy transfer of the domain to the complainant when their concerns were first brought to my attention ….
If there's anything else I can do … to expedite the process, please let me know.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following to obtain from a Panel an order that a domain name be transferred:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confus-ingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complain-ant has rights;
ii. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the same domain name was registered and is being used by Re-spondent in bad faith.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accord-ance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
Further, Policy ¶ 3(a) provides for the transfer of a domain name registration up-on the written instructions of the parties to a UDRP proceeding without the need for otherwise required findings and conclusions (see, for example, Malev Hungar-ian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat. Ar. Forum Jan. 13, 2004; see also Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jun. 24, 2005)).
DECISION
Respondent’s Response does not contest the material allegations of the Com-plaint, and, in particular it does not contest Complainant’s request that the dis-puted domain name be transferred to Complainant. Rather Respondent has indicated in writing a willingness to have the domain name immediately trans-ferred to Complainant. Thus the parties have effectively agreed in writing to a transfer of the subject domain name from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings.
It is therefore Ordered that the <moneytreeink.com> domain name be forthwith TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: June 5, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page