Uprova Credit, LLC and Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake v. Tanongchai Wassanapianpong
Claim Number: FA2205001997096
Complainants are Uprova Credit, LLC and Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake (“Complainants”), represented by Renee Reuter, Missouri. Respondent is Tanongchai Wassanapianpong (“Respondent”), Thailand.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <uprovaloans.com>, registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp.
PANEL
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.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainants submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 19, 2022. The Forum received payment on May 19, 2022.
On May 23, 2022, Internet Domain Service BS Corp confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <uprovaloans.com> domain name is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Internet Domain Service BS Corp has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet Domain Service BS Corp 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 May 24, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 13, 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@uprovaloans.com. Also on May 24, 2022, 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 June 20, 2022, pursuant to Complainants’ request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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.
Complainants request that the domain name be transferred.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainants
The Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
There are two Complainants in this proceeding: Uprova Credit, LLC (“UC”) and Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake (“HP”) They are related entities. HP is the trademark registrant and UC operates the website “www.uprova.com” and is licensed by HP to use its marks.
The Panel determines that the relationship between Complainants and their use of the UPROVA marks constitute a sufficient nexus such that each may claim to have rights to the <uprovaloans.com> domain name listed in the Complaint.
A. Complainants
Complainants are part of a family of entities which, by offering installment loans as alternatives to traditional payday loans, help create jobs and economic opportunity for members of the Pomo, a federally recognized Indian tribe under the laws of the United States. Complainants have rights in the UPROVA word and word and design marks at common law and through registrations by HP of the marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Respondent’s <uprovaloans.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainants’ marks.
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <uprovaloans.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor have Complainants authorized or licensed Respondent to use the UPROVA marks in the domain name. Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead passes itself off as Complainants, offering competing services. Additionally, Respondent uses the domain name to engage in a phishing scheme, trying unlawfully to obtain personal and financial information from users.
Respondent registered the <uprovaloans.com> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainants’ rights in the UPROVA marks and uses it in bad faith to pass itself off as Complainant for commercial gain and to disrupt Complainant’s business by impersonating Complainant.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
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 a 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 Complainants’ undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences as 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”).
Complainants have shown that, through registrations with the USPTO, HP has rights in the UPROVA word mark, Reg. No. 6,403,873, and the UPROVA word and design mark Reg. No. 6403893, both registered on June 29, 2021 upon filings made in 2018. As licensee from HP, UC also has rights in those marks. The Panel finds Respondent’s <uprovaloans.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainants’ word mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic word “loans”, which does nothing to distinguish the domain name from the mark, along with the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), which may be ignored.
Complainants have established this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The <uprovaloans.com> domain name was registered on June 24, 2021, a few days before Complainants’ marks were registered. It resolves to a website displaying Complainants’ UPROVA word and design mark and UC’s domain name <uprova.com>, which Complainants have shown was in use for their website some months before the domain name was registered. The layout of Respondent’s website mimics that of Complainants’ “www.uprova.com” website.
These circumstances, together with Complainants’ assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <uprovaloans.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019).
Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has established this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:
(iii) Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
The evidence provided by Complainants is insufficient to establish that either Complainant had common law trademark rights when Respondent registered the domain name. However, the circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was aware of Complainants’ nascent UPROVA registered trademark rights and their <uprova.com> domain name and website when Respondent registered the <uprovaloans.com> domain name and did so primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶3.8.
Further, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the <uprovaloans.com> domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor and has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainants’ marks as to the source of Respondent’s website and of the services promoted on that website. These circumstances demonstrate registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Complainant has established this element.
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <uprovaloans.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant Uprova Credit, LLC.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: June 26, 2022.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page