Oportun, Inc. v. REDACTED PRIVACY
Claim Number: FA1809001804660
Complainant: Oportun, Inc. of Redwood City, California, United States of America.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.
Respondent: REDACTED PRIVACY of REDACTED PRIVACY, KY.
Respondent Representative: No response provided
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Binky Moon, LLC
Registrars: Uniregistrar Corp
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 Examiner in this proceeding.
Luz Helena Villamil Jimenez, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: September 5, 2018
Commencement: September 5, 2018
Default Date: September 20, 2018
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Findings of fact:
The case at hand refers to the domain name <oportuncash.loans>.
In accordance with the provisions of URS, Complainant claims
(i) that the domain name <oportuncash.loans> is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use;
(ii) that The Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name, and
(iii) that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith since:
● Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor
●By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.
Complainant asserts that it is the owner of OPORTUN trademark, including United States Trademark Registration Nos. 4999048 and 4999148 which is used in connection with offering affordable financial services, including personal loans. Complainant specializes in providing loans to consumers with little or no credit history. Complainant has prominently used its Oportun Marks in interstate commerce since at least as early as January 2015. Complainant has granted over 2.6 million loans to 1.2 million borrowers, providing approximately $5.4 billion dollars in total credit to consumers. Complainant offers personal loans in eleven U.S. states and operates over 280 retail locations. Complainant has established and maintains high standards for the quality of its services offered under the Oportun Marks.
Complainant operates its Internet web site at <Oportun.com>. Consumers can access information about Oportun and its services, apply for loans, and review the status of their loan application via the Oportun Website. The Oportun Website is a vital and integral part of Complainant’s business. Complainant intends to preserve and maintain its rights with respect to the Oportun Marks.
Complainant mentions that the domain name <OportunCash.Loans> wholly incorporates and it is identical to Complainant’s registered OPORTUN mark. Complainant has no business relationship whatsoever with Respondent, and Complainant has neither licensed nor otherwise permitted Respondent to use the Oportun Marks or to apply for any Domain Name incorporating the Oportun Marks. Respondent cannot establish legitimate rights in the Domain Name because Complainant owns exclusive rights in the Oportun Marks, including U.S. federal registrations. Respondent is purportedly using the Domain Name in connection with a website for offering consumers personal loans.
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended:
[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
(i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
(ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
(iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
The process contains documentation demonstrating that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark OPORTUN registered before the United States Patent and Trademark Office under Registration Nos. 4999048 and 4999148 and used in commerce since 2015.
The process contains as well evidence that demonstrates that Complainant’s trademark OPORTUN is in use to identify a website identified with the domain name <oportun.com>.
Consequently, the Examiner considers that the requirement of demonstrating trademark rights, and the usage thereof, has been satisfied.
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
The Examiner concurs with the Complainant in that the disputed domain name <oportuncash.loans> identically reproduces the registered trademark OPORTUN. The Examiner considers that the word “cash” and the extension “loans” do not add distinctiveness to the disputed domain, but instead, contribute to cause confusion inasmuch as both words directly refer to the services rendered by the Complainant through the website <oportun.com> already known by consumers. It should be noted that as asserted on the Complaint, Complainant has been recognized as an industry leader in the field of personal loans. Complainant’s Oportun Marks have been featured in a number of prestigious publications including The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, and Consumer Reports, and The Oportun Marks have become highly distinctive in the minds of the purchasing public.
Moreover, since Respondent has defaulted, there is no evidence to establish any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in his favor.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith:
a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
In the present case, the relevant part of the disputed domain name consists of the word “OPORTUN”, which happen to exactly reproduce the registered trademark “OPORTUN” owned by the Complainant. The identical reproduction of a distinctive trademark within a domain name is hardly the result of casualty, and does suggest an intention to cause confusion to those who have access to the name by leading them to believe it also belongs to the owner of the registered trademark. In the present case, and according to the evidence submitted with the Complaint, the disputed domain is being used in connection with a website for offering personal loans to consumers. This activity does suggest beyond any reasonable doubt that Registrant has intentionally attempted to disrupt the business of a competitor and in addition, attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location, and therefore is being used in bad faith.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:
Luz Helena Villamil Jimenez, Examiner
Dated: September 20, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page