DECISION

National Debt Relief, LLC v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot

Claim Number: FA1910001869478

PARTIES

Complainant is National Debt Relief, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Vladimir Yakovlev, New York, United States. Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot (“Respondent”), United States.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <ationaldebtrelief.com>, <ntionaldebtrelief.com>, <nstionaldebtrelief.com>, <nationaldrbtrelief.com>, <nationaldentrelief.com>, <nationaldebtrlief.com>, <nationakdebtrelief.com>, <natiomaldebtrelief.com>, <natiobaldebtrelief.com>, <nationsldebtrelief.com>, <nationaldebtreleif.com>, <mationaldebtrelief.com>, and <nationaldebtrelirf.com>, registered with Dynadot, LLC.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he 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 October 31, 2019; the Forum received payment on October 31, 2019.

On November 1, 2019, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <ationaldebtrelief.com>, <ntionaldebtrelief.com>, <nstionaldebtrelief.com>, <nationaldrbtrelief.com>, <nationaldentrelief.com>, <nationaldebtrlief.com>, <nationakdebtrelief.com>, <natiomaldebtrelief.com>, <natiobaldebtrelief.com>, <nationsldebtrelief.com>, <nationaldebtreleif.com>, <mationaldebtrelief.com>, and <nationaldebtrelirf.com> domain names are registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, 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 November 1, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 21, 2019 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@ationaldebtrelief.com, postmaster@ntionaldebtrelief.com, postmaster@nstionaldebtrelief.com, postmaster@nationaldrbtrelief.com, postmaster@nationaldentrelief.com, postmaster@nationaldebtrlief.com, postmaster@nationakdebtrelief.com, postmaster@natiomaldebtrelief.com, postmaster@natiobaldebtrelief.com, postmaster@nationsldebtrelief.com, postmaster@nationaldebtreleif.com, postmaster@mationaldebtrelief.com, postmaster@nationaldebtrelirf.com. Also on November 1, 2019, 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 November 26, 2019, 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 operates a debt settlement company. Complainant has rights in the NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 5,394,086, registered Feb. 6, 2018). See Compl. Annex A.

Respondent’s <ationaldebtrelief.com>, <ntionaldebtrelief.com>, <nstionaldebtrelief.com>, <nationaldrbtrelief.com>, <nationaldentrelief.com>, <nationaldebtrlief.com>, <nationakdebtrelief.com>, <natiomaldebtrelief.com>, <natiobaldebtrelief.com>, <nationsldebtrelief.com>, <nationaldebtreleif.com>, <mationaldebtrelief.com>, and <nationaldebtrelirf.com> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as they are typosquatting versions of Complainant’s mark, incorporating mistyped characters.

2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <ationaldebtrelief.com>, <ntionaldebtrelief.com>, <nstionaldebtrelief.com>, <nationaldrbtrelief.com>, <nationaldentrelief.com>, <nationaldebtrlief.com>, <nationakdebtrelief.com>, <natiomaldebtrelief.com>, <natiobaldebtrelief.com>, <nationsldebtrelief.com>, <nationaldebtreleif.com>, <mationaldebtrelief.com>, and <nationaldebtrelirf.com> domain names. Respondent’s disputed domain names constitute typosquatting and there is no legitimate reason for their registration other than phishing.

3. Respondent registered and uses the <ationaldebtrelief.com>, <ntionaldebtrelief.com>, <nstionaldebtrelief.com>, <nationaldrbtrelief.com>, <nationaldentrelief.com>, <nationaldebtrlief.com>, <nationakdebtrelief.com>, <natiomaldebtrelief.com>, <natiobaldebtrelief.com>, <nationsldebtrelief.com>, <nationaldebtreleif.com>, <mationaldebtrelief.com>, and <nationaldebtrelirf.com> domain names in bad faith. Respondent fails to make active use of the disputed domain names which contain redirect links to incorrect or nonexistent sites.

B. Respondent:

1. Respondent failed to submit a response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

1. Respondent’s <ationaldebtrelief.com>, <ntionaldebtrelief.com>, <nstionaldebtrelief.com>, <nationaldrbtrelief.com>, <nationaldentrelief.com>, <nationaldebtrlief.com>, <nationakdebtrelief.com>, <natiomaldebtrelief.com>, <natiobaldebtrelief.com>, <nationsldebtrelief.com>, <nationaldebtreleif.com>, <mationaldebtrelief.com>, and <nationaldebtrelirf.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF mark.

2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ationaldebtrelief.com>, <ntionaldebtrelief.com>, <nstionaldebtrelief.com>, <nationaldrbtrelief.com>, <nationaldentrelief.com>, <nationaldebtrlief.com>, <nationakdebtrelief.com>, <natiomaldebtrelief.com>, <natiobaldebtrelief.com>, <nationsldebtrelief.com>, <nationaldebtreleif.com>, <mationaldebtrelief.com>, and <nationaldebtrelirf.com> domain names.

3. Respondent registered or used the <ationaldebtrelief.com>, <ntionaldebtrelief.com>, <nstionaldebtrelief.com>, <nationaldrbtrelief.com>, <nationaldentrelief.com>, <nationaldebtrlief.com>, <nationakdebtrelief.com>, <natiomaldebtrelief.com>, <natiobaldebtrelief.com>, <nationsldebtrelief.com>, <nationaldebtreleif.com>, <mationaldebtrelief.com>, and <nationaldebtrelirf.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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant asserts rights in the NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”). Complainant provides a copy of its USPTO registration (e.g. Reg. No. 5,394,086, registered Feb. 6, 2018). See Compl. Annex A. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Complainant next argues that Respondent’s <ationaldebtrelief.com>, <ntionaldebtrelief.com>, <nstionaldebtrelief.com>, <nationaldrbtrelief.com>, <nationaldentrelief.com>, <nationaldebtrlief.com>, <nationakdebtrelief.com>, <natiomaldebtrelief.com>, <natiobaldebtrelief.com>, <nationsldebtrelief.com>, <nationaldebtreleif.com>, <mationaldebtrelief.com>, and <nationaldebtrelirf.com> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as they are typosquatting versions of Complainant’s mark, incorporating mistyped characters. While not argued by Complainant, the Panel notes the disputed domain names also add the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to Complainant’s mark. The addition of a gTLD misspelling of a mark are changes insufficient to distinguish a domain name from a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Zhichao Yang, FA 1780211 (Forum May 3, 2018) (“Additionally, each at-issue domain name contains a misspelling or misprint of Complainant’s CLIPS4SALE and CLIPS4SALE.COM trademarks where an extra letter is added to the marks in forming the domain name. Further, there is no doubt that Respondent picked the at-issue domain names precisely because they are easily confused with Complainant trademarks and Complainant’s trademarked <clips4sale.com> website.”); see also 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’). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF mark under 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 contends Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names because Respondent’s disputed domain names constitute typosquatting and there is no legitimate reason for their registration other than phishing. Typosquatting can indicate a lack of rights or legitimate interest in a disputed domain name per 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).”). Phishing can also show a lack or rights or legitimate interest in a disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Morgan Stanley v. Zhange Sheng Xu / Zhang Sheng Xu, FA1501001600534 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that the respondent’s apparent phishing attempt provides further indication that the respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). Complainant argues that Respondent engages in typosquatting via the disputed domain names and there is no legitimate use for the registration of the domain names other than phishing. The Panel finds Respondent engages in typosquatting or phishing and thus lacks right or legitimate interest per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel notes Complainant does not make any arguments that would fall under Policy ¶ 4(b). However, these arguments are merely illustrative rather than exclusive to support a finding of bad faith. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Admin - This Domain is For Sale on GoDaddy.com / Trnames Premium Name Services, FA 1714157 (Forum Mar. 8, 2017) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) provisions are mere illustrative of bad faith, and that the respondent’s bad faith may be demonstrated by other allegations of bad faith under the totality of the circumstances). As such, the Panel finds Complainant’s Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) arguments are sufficient to support a finding of bad faith.

Complainant argues Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith as Respondent fails to make active use of the disputed domain names, which contain redirect links to incorrect or nonexistent sites. Failure to make active use of a disputed domain name can demonstrate bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA1503001608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) (“Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving webpages of the disputed domain names, each of which display parked or unavailable webpages. The Panel therefore finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names 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 <ationaldebtrelief.com>, <ntionaldebtrelief.com>, <nstionaldebtrelief.com>, <nationaldrbtrelief.com>, <nationaldentrelief.com>, <nationaldebtrlief.com>, <nationakdebtrelief.com>, <natiomaldebtrelief.com>, <natiobaldebtrelief.com>, <nationsldebtrelief.com>, <nationaldebtreleif.com>, <mationaldebtrelief.com>, and <nationaldebtrelirf.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

John J. Upchurch, Panelist

Dated: December 9, 2019