Reliable Credit Association, Inc. v. Invest Mutual
Claim Number: FA1801001766542
Complainant is Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kevin M. Hayes of Klarquist Sparkman LLP, Oregon, USA. Respondent is Invest Mutual (“Respondent”), Benin.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <reliable-credit.com>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 11, 2018; the Forum received payment on January 11, 2018.
On January 12, 2018, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <reliable-credit.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains Inc. 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 January 16, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 5, 2018 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@reliable-credit.com. Also on January 16, 2018, 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 February 12, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant uses the RELIABLE CREDIT mark in connection with financial goods and services.
Complainant has rights in the RELIABLE CREDIT mark through Complainant’s trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <reliable-credit.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RELIABLE CREDIT mark because Respondent merely adds a hyphen and a “.com” generic top level domain (“gTLD”) to Complainant’s mark.
Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in the <reliable-credit.com> domain name because Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant by using the at-issue domain name to address a copy of Complainant’s website controlled by Respondent.
Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract users to its <reliable-credit.com> domain name by passing itself off as Complainant for Respondent’s commercial gain.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the RELIABLE CREDIT mark as demonstrated by its registration of such mark with the USPTO.
Complainant’s rights in the RELIABLE CREDIT mark existed prior to Respondent’s registration of the at-issue domain name.
Respondent uses the <reliable-credit.com> domain name to direct internet users to a website controlled by Respondent that appears to duplicate Complainant’s official website.
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.”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO trademark registration for the RELIABLE CREDIT trademark evidences its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(I). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO).
Additionally, the at-issue domain name contains Complainant’s entire RELIABLE CREDIT trademark with its space substituted by a hyphen and with the top-level domain name “.com” appended to the resulting hyphenated string. The slight differences between the at-issue <reliable-credit.com> domain name and Complainant’s RELIABLE CREDIT trademark are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of the Policy since both the insertion of a hyphen and affixation of a top-level domain name are generally immaterial to UDRP analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i) Respondent’s <reliable-credit.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RELIABLE CREDIT trademark See ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum Aug. 2, 2017) (“Respondent’s <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant’s ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD “.com.” These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark.”); see also, Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also, Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Invest Mutual” and the record contains no evidence that otherwise tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <reliable-credit.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <reliable-credit.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). SeeCoppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (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).
Furthermore, Respondent uses the < <reliable-credit.com> domain name to direct internet users to a website controlled by Respondent. That website appears to be a copy of Complainant’s official website. Respondent thus attempts to pass itself off as Complainant presumably for commercial gain. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Microsoft Corp. v. lijiuliang, FA0912001300266 (Forum Feb. 11, 2010) (“Respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as Complainant by imitating Complainant’s official website … is not 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)”); see also, Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent’s own website for commercial gain does not constitute either 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)).
Given the foregoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below, Policy ¶ 4(b) specific bad faith circumstances as well as other circumstances lead the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4 (a)(iii) of the Policy.
Respondent registered and uses the <reliable-credit.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. Respondent, through the at-issue domain name and wholesale copying of Complainant’s official website and its associated proprietary intellectual property creates the false impression that Respondent’s website is sponsored by Complainant, when it is not. Using the confusingly similar domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and trade upon Complainant’s goodwill for commercial gain demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and otherwise. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”); see also, Am. Online, Inc. v. Miles, FA 105890 (Forum May 31, 2002) (“Respondent is using the domain name at issue to resolve to a website at which Complainant’s trademarks and logos are prominently displayed. Respondent has done this with full knowledge of Complainant’s business and trademarks. The Panel finds that this conduct is that which is prohibited by Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”).
Additionally and as alluded to above, Respondent registered the <reliable-credit.com> domain name knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the RELIABLE CREDIT mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from Respondent’s use of the <reliable-credit.com> domain name and corresponding website to attempt to pass itself off as Complainant. It is thus clear that Respondent intentionally registered the at-issue domain name to improperly exploit its trademark value, rather than for some benign reason. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the < <reliable-credit.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering 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 <reliable-credit.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: February 14, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page