TMX Finance, LLC v. Grina Merlinda
Claim Number: FA2203001986413
Complainant is TMX Finance, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Nathan C Belzer of Belzer PC, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Grina Merlinda (“Respondent”), Russia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <title-max.com> (“Domain Name”), registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU 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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 1, 2022; the Forum received payment on March 1, 2022.
On March 2, 2022, Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC; confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <title-max.com> domain name is registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC; and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC; has verified that Respondent is bound by the Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU 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 4, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Russian and English language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 24, 2022 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@title-max.com. Also on March 4, 2022, the Russian and English language 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 29, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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.
Preliminary Issue: Language of Proceeding
The language of the Registration Agreement in this case is Russian. The Complaint has been provided in English and Complainant has requested that the language of the proceeding be English.
It is established practice to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties. Factors which previous panels have seen as particularly compelling are: WHOIS information which establishes Respondent in a country which would demonstrate familiarity with the English language, filing of a trademark registration with an entity which shows an understanding of the English language, and any evidence (or lack thereof) exhibiting Respondent’s understanding of the language requested by Complainant. See The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, D2009-0610 (WIPO July 1, 2009) (panel exercising discretion in deciding that the language of the proceedings advance in English, contrary to the Registration Agreement, based on evidence that respondent has command of the language). Further, the Panel may weigh the relative time and expense in enforcing the Russian language agreement, which would result in prejudice toward either party. See Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006) (deciding that the proceeding should be in English, stating, “It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.”) and Zappos.com, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade, Case No. D2008-1191 (WIPO October 15, 2008) (holding that proceedings could be conducted in English even though the registration agreement was in Chinese where “the disputed domain resolves to a website [that] is exclusively in English, from which can be reasonably presumed that the Respondent has the ability to communicate in English in order to conduct his business over the website in English”)
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. The website to which the Domain Name resolved prior to the commencement of the proceeding (“Respondent’s Website”) is in English and the Domain Name consists of two English language words. The Panel also notes that the Respondent has not objected in any way to the proceeding continuing in English. After considering the circumstances of the present case, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.
A. Complainant
Complainant provides financial services that include automobile title loans and other types of installment and temporary loans. Complainant has rights in the TITLEMAX mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 3,044,986, registered January 17, 2006). Respondent’s <title-max.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TITLEAMX mark. Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds a hyphen along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <title-max.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the TITLEMAX mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the Domain Name to resolve to a webpage that purports to offer financial services that compete with Complainant’s business. Furthermore, Respondent’s Website makes various requests for personal and financial information from visitors which may be used to phish or defraud visitors.
Respondent registered and used the <title-max.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent has been the subject of previous UDRP decisions showing a pattern of bad faith. Respondent uses the Domain Name to confuse internet users by resolving to a webpage that purports to offer services that compete with Complainant’s business but may actually be used to steal personal or banking information. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TITLEMAX mark due to the longstanding use of mark in commerce.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the TITLEMAX mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TITLEMAX mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name 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 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 has rights in the TITLEMAX mark based upon registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,044,986, registered January 17, 2006). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, “Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”).
The Panel finds that the <title-max.com> domain name is confusing similar to Complainant’s TITLEMAX mark as it wholly incorporates the TITLEMAX mark and adds a hyphen and the “.com” gTLD. Registration of a domain name that makes use of a complainant’s mark and adds a hyphen and a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum Aug. 2, 2017) (“Respondent’s <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant’s ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD “.com.” These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark.”) see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because the domain name syntax requires TLDs.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the TITLEMAX mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “Grina Merlinda” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Name for a website that purports to compete with and pass off as the Complainant for the purpose of selling financial services under the TITLEMAX mark in direct competition with Complainant’s financial services. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers goods or services that compete with a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik, FA 1654759 (Forum Feb. 3, 2016) (finding that Complainant provides freelance talent services, and that Respondent competes with Complainant by promoting freelance talent services through the disputed domain’s resolving webpage, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). See also General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Furthermore the Respondent’s Website includes a series of pages that request that visitors provide sensitive personal and banking information to Respondent, such as bank account details and driving license numbers. This could result in customers, thinking that they were providing information as part of a loan application with Complainant, providing Respondent with such information. Such conduct is best characterized as “phishing”. Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to impersonate Complainant for the purpose of engaging in a phishing scheme to acquire personal and confidential information is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Caroline Alves Maia, FA 1796113 (Forum Aug. 6, 2018) (finding the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the domain name because it used the name to resolve to a website virtually identical to the complainant’s to prompt users to enter their login information so that the respondent may gain access to that customer’s cryptocurrency account); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. ruth weinstein, FA 1770352 (Forum Mar. 7, 2018) (“Use of a disputed domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as a complainant and to conduct a phishing scheme is indicative of a failure to use said domain name in connection with a bona fide offer of goods and services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or otherwise fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name, October 16, 2019, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s TITLEMAX mark since the Complainant is a well-known entity and the Respondent’s Website offered products in competition with Complainant. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that incorporates the TITLEMAX mark in its entirety and use it to redirect visitors to a website purporting to offer financial services other than to take advantage of Complainant’s reputation in the TITLEMAX Mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant’s TITLEMAX Mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website offering financial services in a manner that misleads consumers into thinking that Respondent, or the service offered by the Respondent, is in some way connected to the Complainant. In addition the Panel also finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent uses the Domain Name to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme whereby Respondent seeks to acquire personal or banking information from customers or potential customers of the Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”). See also Google Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1506001622862 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent’s apparent use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a ‘phishing’ scheme further established its bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(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 <title-max.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: March 31, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page