Regional Management Corp. v. NYRKOV ANDREY
Claim Number: FA1709001749795
Complainant is Regional Management Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by Tiffani D. Otey of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice PLLC, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is NYRKOV ANDREY (“Respondent”), Russia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <regionalfinance.loan>, registered with NameSilo, 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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 19, 2017; the Forum received payment on September 19, 2017.
On September 19, 2017, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <regionalfinance.loan> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 September 21, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 11, 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@regionalfinance.loan. Also on September 21, 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 October 16, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it is a well-established financial services company that provides secured and unsecured personal loans to its customers. Complainant has used the REGIONAL FINANCE mark since 1987 and has registered the mark in the United States, with filing date January 25, 2016, and registration date September 13, 2016.
According to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, minus the space, and merely adds a “.loan” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent attracts Internet users by offering personal loan services (specifically payday loan services) in a fraudulent scheme to phish for their personal information. The website at the disputed domain name features a dialogue box that asks visitors to enter personal information to be considered for a loan. Specifically, the dialogue box asks visitors to enter their name, address, employment information, and banking information, including routing number and account number, among other personal identifiable information. Aside from the dialogue box, none of the other links or buttons on the website are operative. Even if Respondent did offer loan services (which Complainant denies), Respondent’s attempts to pass itself off as Complainant violates the Policy. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s attempts to obtain users’ personal information disrupts Complainant’s business by offering competing loan services. Respondent’s use also creates a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement by passing itself off as Complainant. Respondent had constructive knowledge of the REGIONAL FINANCE mark because of Complainant’s trademark registration. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark REGIONAL FINANCE and uses it to market financial services, in particular loans.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to January 25, 2016.
The disputed domain name was registered on April 9, 2016.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks.
The disputed domain name resolves to a website that purports to offer services that compete with those of Complainant and that appears to be phising scheme.
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 (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 registered its REGIONAL FINANCE mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 5,039,991, filed Jan. 25, 2016, registered Sept. 13, 2016). The general consensus among panels is that rights in a registered mark are deemed to date back to the filing date of record. See ADP, LLC v. Dennis Shifrin / Streamline, FA 1732114 (Forum June 13, 2017) (holding that “the relevant date for Complainant’s mark is the filing date.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has proven its rights in or to the REGIONAL FINANCE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), and that its rights date back to the filing date: January 25, 2016.
The disputed domain name is identical to the REGIONAL FINANCE mark because it incorporates the entire mark, eliminates the space between words of the mark, and merely attaches a gTLD. Removing or adding punctuation or spaces, or adding a gTLD fails to differentiate the mark and disputed domain name. See DD IP Holder LLC v. Phill Aspden, FA 1603215 (Forum Apr. 8, 2015) (finding that the disputed domain name <dunkin.coffee> is identical to Complainant's DUNKIN COFFEE registered mark, as gTLDs that reference goods or services offered under the registered mark may be taken into account). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: given that Respondent did not submit a response, WHOIS can substantiate a claim that Respondent is not commonly known per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same). In the present case, the WHOIS record shows that the registrant is “Nyrkov Andrey.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The website at the disputed domain name purports to offer loan services similar to Complainant’s business. Respondent uses that website to attract users and phish for their personal information: the website features a dialogue box that asks visitors to enter personal information to be considered for a loan. Specifically, the dialogue box asks visitors to enter their name, address, employment information, and banking information, including routing number and account number, among other personal identifiable information. Past panels have found that passing off as a complainant or using a confusingly similar domain name to phish for information do not confer rights or legitimate interest for a respondent. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in a domain name with which it conducted a phishing scheme to procure “Internet users’ personal information”); see also Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) (“Because [the] respondent in this case is also attempting to pass itself off as [the] complainant, presumably for financial gain, the Panel finds the respondent is not using the <mortgageresearchcenter.org> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent purports to sell services that directly compete with Complainant’s business. Competing use has been considered a disruption pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the respondent’s competing website).
Further, again as already noted, Respondent attempts to collect personal information, including banking information, likely for fraudulent purposes. This demonstrates bad faith use in the sense of the Policy. See Capital One Fin. Corp. & Capital One Bank v. Howel, FA 289304 (Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (“The <capitalonebank.biz> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, it is being used to redirect Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s credit application website, and it is being used to fraudently [sic] acquire personal information from Complainant’s clients. Respondent’s use of the domain name supports findings of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <regionalfinance.loan> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: October 16, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page