loanDepot.com, LLC v. Angela DeLeone-Matthiessen
Claim Number: FA2103001936955
Complainant is loanDepot.com, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Hani Sayed of Rutan & Tucker LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Angela DeLeone-Matthiessen (“Respondent”), South Carolina, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <loandepotarena.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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 17, 2021; the Forum received payment on March 17, 2021.
On March 18, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <loandepotarena.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 23, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 12, 2021 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@loandepotarena.com. Also on March 23, 2021, 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 April 18, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it is the U.S.’s fifth largest nonbank consumer lender offering home mortgage, refinance, equity, and personal loan products. It is a giant in the world of non-bank consumer lending for home mortgages, refinance, equity, and personal loan products. Complainant acquires more than 500,000 potential borrowers every month, with 1,700 licensed loan officers holding more than 10,000 licenses to serve borrowers in all 50 states. On January 25, 2021, Complainant announced a five-year partnership with Major League Baseball (“MLB”) establishing itself as “The Official Mortgage Provider of MLB”. Complainant has rights in the LOANDEPOT mark through its registration of the mark in the United States in 2010.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its LOANDEPOT mark as it includes the LOANDEPOT mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive term “arena” as well as the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com”.
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the LOANDEPOT mark. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as Respondent registered the disputed domain in order to preempt the Complainant’s registration and host competing pay-per-click links on its resolving website.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered a confusingly similar domain name to Complainant’s LOANDEPOT mark with opportunistic bad faith, as it likely had the intention to sell the domain name to the Complainant given its value, after Complainant partnered with the MLB. Additionally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to preempt Complainant’s registration. In addition this, Respondent uses the disputed domain name in order to divert internet traffic from the Complainant for personal gain by displaying competing links on the resolving website. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in the LOANDEPOT mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns rights in the mark LOANDEPOT dating back to 2010 and uses it to market consumer lending services.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2021.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The resolving website displays pay-per-click hyperlinks to products and services that compete with those of Complainant.
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”).
The disputed domain name includes Complainant’s LOANDEPOT mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term “arena” and the gTLD “.com” The addition of generic or descriptive term and a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain names from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain names] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain names and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: when no response is submitted, WHOIS information can be used to show that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Timothy Mays aka Linda Haley aka Edith Barberdi, FA1504001617061 (Forum June 9, 2015) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <amazondevice.org>, <amazondevices.org> and <buyamazondevices.com> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the pertinent WHOIS information identified “Timothy Mays,” “Linda Haley,” and “Edith Barberdi” as registrants of the disputed domain names). Here, the WHOIS information provided by the registrar lists the registrant as “Angela DeLone-Matthiessen”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving website displays competing pay-per-click links. Using a disputed domain name to host competing, pay-per-click links is generally not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use with the disputed domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website display competing, pay-per-click links. Past panels have found that this constitutes bad faith disruption for commercial gain. See block.one v. Negalize Interactive Things, FA 1798280 (Forum Aug. 21, 2018) (“Offering links to competing products or services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another.”); see also American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA1760954 (Forum Jan. 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)”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <loandepotarena.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: April 19, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page