National Debt Relief, LLC v. Zhichao Yang
Claim Number: FA2002001882692
Complainant is National Debt Relief, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Vladimir Yakovlev, New York, USA. Respondent is Zhichao Yang (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <nationaldetrelief.com> and <nationaldebtelief.com>, registered with Godaddy.Com, Llc.
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.
Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 10, 2020; the Forum received payment on February 10, 2020.
On February 12, 2020, Godaddy.Com, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <nationaldetrelief.com> and <nationaldebtelief.com> domain names are registered with Godaddy.Com, Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Godaddy.Com, Llc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.Com, 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 March 6, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 26, 2020 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@nationaldetrelief.com, postmaster@nationaldebtelief.com. Also on March 6, 2020, 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 30, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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
i) Complainant, National Debt Relief LLC, has rights in the NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF mark based upon 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). The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF mark, as the domain names are typosquatted versions of Complainant’s mark.
ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent engages in typosquatting. Respondent attempts to phish for users information.
iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain names to mislead Complainant’s customers. Further, Respondent makes no active use of the disputed domain names.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. Respondent registered the disputed domain names on May 9, 2018.
2. Complainant has established rights in the NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF mark based upon 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).
3. The disputed domain names resolve to a webpage displaying links to third party websites.
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”).
Complainant claims rights in the NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF mark based upon registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 5,394,086, registered Feb. 6, 2018). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the HOME DEPOT mark). The Panel therefore holds that Complainant’s registration of the NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant next argues the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF mark as Respondent engages in typosquatting. The Panel notes that while Complainant does not specifically argue this, Respondent removes the “b” in the <nationaldetrelief.com> domain name and removes the “r” in the <nationaldebtelief.com> domain name. Respondent also adds the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to the disputed domain names. Such changes are not sufficient to distinguish a domain name from an incorporated mark in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, FA 877979 (Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (finding the respondent’s <microssoft.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s MICROSOFT mark because they differ by only one letter, and “such a small alteration is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)”); see also Tupelo Honey Hospitality Corporation v. King, Reggie, FA 1732247 (Forum July 19, 2017) (“Addition of a gTLD is irrelevant where a mark has been fully incorporated into a domain name and the gTLD is the sole difference.”). The Panel therefore determines the <nationaldetrelief.com> and <nationaldebtelief.com> domain names are confusingly similar to the NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
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 that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because Respondent engages in typosquatting. Such use may indicate a lack of rights and legitimate interests. 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).”). The Panel recalls that Respondent purportedly engages in typosquatting of the NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Complainant further argues that Respondent engages in a phishing scheme. Using a disputed domain name to phish to users information may evince a lack of rights and legitimate interests. The Panel notes that Complainant provides no evidence to support this argument. However, the Panel has referred to the disputed domain names’ resolving webpage, and has found that it features links to websites of third parties some of which appear Complainant's competitors.
The Panel finds that such a use of the disputed domain names does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Complainant also contends that Respondent’s bad faith is indicated by its use of the disputed domain names to mislead Complainant’s customers to the disputed domain names. Use of a domain name to disrupt a complainant’s business and mislead its customers can demonstrate a respondent’s bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii). See PopSockets LLC v. san mao, FA 1740903 (Forum Aug. 27, 2017) (finding disruption of a complainant’s business which was not directly commercial competitive behavior was nonetheless sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). Complainant contends the disputed domain names resolve to a webpage displaying links to third party websites which may mislead consumers. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names 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 <nationaldetrelief.com> and <nationaldebtelief.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist
Dated: April 4, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page