KMD Partners, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp.
Claim Number: FA2111001974656
Complainant is KMD Partners, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Gregory J. Chinlund of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp. ("Respondent"), Bahamas.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <creditninja.com.co>, registered with TLD Registrar Solutions 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 November 24, 2021; the Forum received payment on November 24, 2021.
On November 30, 2021, TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <creditninja.com.co> domain name is registered with TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the TLD Registrar Solutions 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 December 6, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 27, 2021 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@creditninja.com.co. Also on December 6, 2021, 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 January 3, 2022, 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 Chicago-based financial services company that provides a variety of personal and installment loans via the domain name <creditninja.com>. Complainant has used the CREDITNINJA mark in connection with its services since 2018 and owns a United States trademark registration for the mark in standard character form.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <creditninja.com.co> in June 2021. The domain name was used for a website entitled "Credit Ninja Installment Loans Direct Lenders" that offered installment loans until September 2021, when the site was taken down following a communication from Complainant. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, does not have a business relationship with Complainant, and has never had permission to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <creditninja.com.co> is identical or confusingly similar to its CREDITNINJA 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 identical 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 <creditninja.com.co> corresponds to Complainant's registered CREDITNINJA trademark, with the ".com" second-level domain and the ".co" top-level domain appended thereto. These additions are normally irrelevant for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., KMD Partners, LLC v. Jecaterina Dvorjanska / James Slavin, FA 1973392 (Forum Dec. 27, 2021) (finding <creditninja.loan> and <creditninja.me> identical to CREDIT NINJA); Opportunity Financial, LLC v. Eric Schirmer, FA 1928585 (Forum Feb. 22, 2021) (finding <opploans.com.co> identical to OPPLOANS). The Panel therefore considers the disputed domain name to be identical to Complainant's registered mark.
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).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and its sole apparent use has been for a website passing off as Complainant and offering directly competing services. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., KMD Partners, LLC v. Jecaterina Dvorjanska / James Slavin, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving 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."
The disputed domain name corresponds to Complainant's registered mark without authorization. It is registered in the name of what the Panel infers to be a privacy registration service, presumably concealing the identity of the beneficial registrant. Its sole apparent use has been to pass off as Complainant for the purpose of promoting directly competing services. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., KMD Partners, LLC v. Jecaterina Dvorjanska / James Slavin, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <creditninja.com.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: January 4, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page