loanDepot.com, LLC v. MOIRANGTHEM BIRBANTA
Claim Number: FA2006001901962
Complainant is loanDepot.com, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Hani Sayed of Rutan & Tucker LLP, California, USA. Respondent is MOIRANGTHEM BIRBANTA ("Respondent"), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <capitalloandepot.com>, registered with Wix.com Ltd.
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 26, 2020; the Forum received payment on June 26, 2020.
On June 30, 2020, Wix.com Ltd. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <capitalloandepot.com> domain name is registered with Wix.com Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wix.com Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wix.com Ltd. 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 July 2, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 22, 2020 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@capitalloandepot.com. Also on July 2, 2020, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 July 28, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 is a nonbank consumer lender in the United States that offers home mortgage, refinance, equity, and personal loan products. Complainant is among the five largest lenders by volume, with 1,700 licensed loan officers serving borrowers in all 50 states. Complainant has used the LOANDEPOT trademark in connection with lending services since 2009, and owns United States trademark registrations for LOANDEPOT and related marks.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <capitalloandepot.com> in June 2020. The domain name is being used for a website that purports to offer money lending services, referring to itself inconsistently as "Web Bank" and "Capital Loan Depot." Complainant alleges that the website is "a half-built cut-and-paste job" copied from other websites, and that it is being used to perpetrate a gift card scam that targets Internet users who contact Respondent through the site. Complainant notes that a prior proceeding under the Policy, loanDepot.com, LLC v. MOIRANGTHEM BIRBANTA / Moirangthem Birbanta Singh, FA 1880527 (Forum Feb. 20, 2020), involved the same parties, the same trademark, similar domain names, and a nearly identical gift card scam website.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <capitalloandepot.com> is confusingly similar to its LOANDEPOT mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <capitalloandepot.com> incorporates Complainant's registered LOANDEPOT trademark, adding the generic term "capital" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., loanDepot.com, LLC v. Zack Henderson / Business opportunities, FA 1889972 (Forum Apr. 25, 2020) (finding <expressloandepot.com> confusingly similar to LOANDEPOT); loanDepot.com, LLC v. MOIRANGTHEM BIRBANTA / Moirangthem Birbanta Singh, FA 1880527, supra (finding <theusloandepot.com> and <theonlineloandepot.com> confusingly similar to LOANDEPOT); PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. v. Daniel Lee / Danie Lee, FA 1533525 (Forum Jan. 20, 2014) (finding <capitalofpnc.com> confusingly similar to PNC); Coutts & Co. & Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. Coutts Capital, FA 1231769 (Forum Dec. 22, 2008) (finding <couttscapital.com> confusingly similar to COUTTS). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
For the same reasons as those stated by the Panel in loanDepot.com, LLC v. MOIRANGTHEM BIRBANTA / Moirangthem Birbanta Singh, FA 1880527, supra, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
For the same reasons as those stated by the Panel in loanDepot.com, LLC v. MOIRANGTHEM BIRBANTA / Moirangthem Birbanta Singh, FA 1880527, supra, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <capitalloandepot.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: July 29, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page