DECISION

 

loanDepot.com, LLC v. LiJin Dong / Li Jin Dong

Claim Number: FA1802001771647

 

PARTIES

Complainant is loanDepot.com, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Hani Sayed of Rutan & Tucker LLP, California, USA.  Respondent is LiJin Dong / Li Jin Dong (“Respondent”), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <loanfepot.com> and <loandrpot.com>, registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation.

 

PANEL

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.

 

John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 12, 2018; the Forum received payment on February 12, 2018.

 

On February 14, 2018, Xin Net Technology Corporation confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <loanfepot.com> and <loandrpot.com> domain names are registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Xin Net Technology Corporation has verified that Respondent is bound by the Xin Net Technology Corporation 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 February 14, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 6, 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@loanfepot.com and postmaster@loandrpot.com.  Also on February 14, 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 March 12, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.   Complainant

1.    Complainant is a non-bank consumer lender and offers home mortgages, refinance, equity, and personal loan products. Complainant has rights in the LOANDEPOT mark through its trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,804,520, registered Jun. 15, 2010). See Compl. Annex E. Respondent’s <loanfepot.com> and <loandrpot.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOANDEPOT mark as Respondent merely misspells Complainant’s mark.

2.    Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <loanfepot.com> and <loandrpot.com> domain names as Respondent is not licensed or permitted to use Complainant’s LOANDEPOT mark and Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Additionally, Respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use at the domain names’ resolving webpages as Respondent diverts users to offer competing loan services. See Compl. Annex J. Further, Respondent heavily engages in typosquatting by merely changing one letter in Complainant’s mark.

 

3.    Respondent registered and uses the infringing domain names in bad faith. Respondent owns an inordinately large number of disputed domain names, including the <loanfepot.com> and <loandrpot.com> domain names, which indicates bad faith registration and use. Additionally, Respondent intentionally diverts users to the resolving domains to generate revenue from competing loan services, which also disrupts Complainant’s business. See Compl. Annex J. Furthermore, Respondent engages in typosquatting.

 

B.   Respondent

1.    Respondent did not submit a response.

 

Preliminary Issue: Language of Proceeding

Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language.  After considering the circumstance of the present case, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.

 

    FINDINGS

1.    Respondent’s <loanfepot.com> and <loandrpot.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOANDEPOT mark.

2.    Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <loanfepot.com> and <loandrpot.com> domain names.

3.    Respondent registered or used the <loanfepot.com> and <loandrpot.com> domain names in bad faith.

 

DISCUSSION

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.”).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant claims to have rights in the LOANDEPOT mark through its USPTO registrations for the mark. Registering a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to show rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, “Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”). Here, Complainant provides copies of its USPTO registrations for the LOANDEPOT mark (e.g., Reg. No. 3,804,520, registered Jun. 15, 2010). See Compl. Annex E. Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has sufficiently demonstrated rights in the LOANDEPOT mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, Complainant argues Respondent’s <loanfepot.com> and <loandrpot.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOANDEPOT mark as Respondent misspells Complainant’s mark. The Panel also notes that the domain name incorporates the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Misspelling and adding a gTLD are insufficient changes to negate any confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and a complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bank of America Corporation v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1629452 (Forum Aug. 18, 2015) (finding that the <blankofamerica.com> domain name contains the entire BANK OF AMERICA mark and merely adds the gTLD ‘.com’ and the letter ‘l’ to create a common misspelling of the word ‘bank.’). As Complainant argues, Respondent misspells Complainant’s mark by replacing the letter “d” with an “e” in one of the domain names, and replaces the letter “e” with an “r” in the other domain name. Both domain names add a “.com” gTLD. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent’s <loanfepot.com> and <loandrpot.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOANDEPOT mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”).

 

Complainant argues Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <loanfepot.com> and <loandrpot.com> domain names as Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s LOANDEPOT mark and Respondent is not commonly known by either of the disputed domain names. WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name when respondent fails to submit a response per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information for both of the disputed domain names identify Respondent as “LiJin Dong / Li Jin Dong.” See Compl. Annex A. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by either of the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Next, Complainant contends Respondent is not using the <loanfepot.com> and <loandrpot.com> domain names in connection to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent diverts users to the disputed domain names and advertises competing loan services. Redirecting users to a disputed domain name containing links to competing goods or services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See McGuireWoods LLP v. Mykhailo Loginov / Loginov Enterprises d.o.o, FA1412001594837 (Forum Jan. 22, 2015) (“The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to feature parked hyperlinks containing links in competition with Complainant’s legal services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving webpages for Respondent’s domain names, which feature hyperlinks that advertise loan and mortgage services that redirect users to third-party websites. See Compl. Annex J. As such, the Panel finds Respondent’s featuring of competing hyperlinks is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).

 

Additionally, Complainant claims Respondent engages in typosquatting by intentionally misspelling Complainant’s mark in the domain name. Registering a domain name containing common typing errors in a complainant’s mark can indicate a lack of rights and legitimate interests in a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Assocation v. Pham Dinh Nhut, FA1502001605819 (Forum Apr. 17, 2015) (“Respondent’s acts of typosquatting provide additional evidence that respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). Here, as noted above, one domain name replaces the letter “d” with the letter “f,” while the other domain name replaces the letter “e” with the letter “r.” Both replaced letter are next to the original letter on a standard keyboard. Accordingly, the Panel believes Respondent’s domain names are typosquatted versions of Complainant’s mark, and uses this as additional evidence of Respondent’s alleged lack of rights and legitimate interests per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts Respondent owns an inordinately large number of domain names that incorporate third-party marks, which indicates a pattern of bad faith registration and use. Registering a large number of domain names that incorporate third party marks can evidence a pattern of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See N.H. Sweepstakes Comm’n v. We Web Well, Inc., FA 197499 (Forum Nov. 3, 2003) (finding that the complainant’s submission of WHOIS evidence that listed the respondent as the registrant of other domain names incorporating third-party trademarks was sufficient to establish that the respondent had a pattern of registering and using domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). Complainant provides a list of domain names registered by Respondent and highlights domain names that incorporate third party marks. See Compl. Annex I. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s registrations of a large number of domain names incorporating third party mark indicates a pattern of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).

 

Additionally, Complainant argues Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business and diverts traffic to its <loanfepot.com> and <loandrpot.com> domain names which features competing hyperlinks, for commercial gain. Diverting users to a disputed domain name where respondent features competing hyperlinks for pecuniary gain may indicate bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Health Republic Insurance Company v. Above.com Legal, FA1506001622088 (Forum July 10, 2015) (“The use of a domain name’s resolving website to host links to competitors of a complainant shows intent to disrupt that complainant’s business, thereby showing bad faith in use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA1760954 (Forum January 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s hosting of links to Complainant’s competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”). As noted above, Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving webpages, both of which feature a variety of hyperlinks related to mortgage and loan goods and services. See Compl. Annex J. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business and attracts users to its domain names to commercially benefit from competing hyperlinks, demonstrating bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

Furthermore, Complainant argues Respondent engages in typosquatting. Registering a disputed domain name with minor misspellings of a complainant’s mark may be evidence of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Homer TLC, Inc. v. Artem Ponomarev, FA1506001623825 (Forum July 20, 2015) (“Finally, under this head of the Policy, it is evident that the <homededpot.com> domain name is an instance of typosquatting, which is the deliberate misspelling of the mark of another in a domain name, done to take advantage of common typing errors made by Internet users in entering into a web browser the name of an enterprise with which they would like to do business online.  Typosquatting is independent evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of a domain

name.”). Complainant contends that Respondent makes minor misspellings in Complainant’s LOANDEPOT mark by replacing one letter in the mark for a different letter. Accordingly, the Panel agrees that the infringing domain names contain minor misspellings of Complainant’s mark, and holds that Respondent is engaging in typosquatting in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <loanfepot.com> and <loandrpot.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

John J. Upchurch, Panelist

Dated:  March 26, 2018