Paymentus Corporation v. Yang Zhi Chao
Claim Number: FA2207002006277
Complainant is Paymentus Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Stephen M. Vaughn of Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Yang Zhi Chao (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <mypaymentus.com>, registered with eName Technology Co., Ltd..
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 29, 2022; the Forum received payment on July 29, 2022.
On August 1, 2022, eName Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <mypaymentus.com> domain name is registered with eName Technology Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eName Technology Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eName Technology Co., 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 August 5, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 25, 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@mypaymentus.com. Also on August 5, 2022, the Chinese 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 August 30, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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.
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 English. After considering the circumstance of the present case, including Respondent’s failure to object or otherwise respond, the Panel finds that this proceeding should be in English.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant provides a platform for online and bill payment services.
Complainant asserts rights in the PAYMENTUS mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
Respondent’s <mypaymentus.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s PAYMENTUS mark, as it incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety, only adding the generic term “my” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (gTLD).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <mypaymentus.com> domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its PAYMENTUS mark, nor is Respondent commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Further, Respondent is not using the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the <mypaymentus.com> website hosts hyperlinks some of which compete with Complainant. Respondent also uses the domain name to engage in a phishing scheme to fraudulently obtain internet users’ financial and personal information.
Respondent registered and uses the <mypaymentus.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent has a history of registering domain names in bad faith, with multiple UDRP proceedings decided against Respondent. Respondent also attempts to attract users for commercial gain by hosting competing pay-per-click hyperlinks at the <mypaymentus.com> website. Additionally, Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to registering the at-issue domain name and engages in typosquatting. Finally, Respondent uses the domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in PAYMENTUS.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain names after Complainant acquired rights in the PAYMENTUS trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain names to profit from pay-per-click links and to engage in a phishing scheme intent on unlawfully obtain personal and financial information from internet users.
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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant shows that it has a USPTO registration for its PAYMENTUS trademark. Any relevant national trademark registration is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).”).
Respondent’s <mypaymentus.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PAYMENTUS mark. The domain name contains Complainant’s entire trademark prefixed with the term “my” with all followed by the “.com” top-level domain name. The differences between the at-issue <mypaymentus.com> domain name and Complainant’s PAYMENTUS trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) that Respondent’s <mypaymentus.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PAYMENTUS trademark. See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (Finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the <mypaymentus.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Yang Zhi Chao.” The record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by the <mypaymentus.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s at-issue domain name directs internet users to a website presenting pay-per-click links and requesting site visitors for payment options or personal login information. The website hosts hyperlinks that redirect internet users to entities that are in competition with Complainant. Respondent’s apparent use of the confusingly similar domain name is to capitalize on Complainant’s trademark via pay-per-click hyperlinks and further to perpetrate a phishing scheme intent on fraudulently obtaining personal and financial information from third-parties. Such uses of <mypaymentus.com> constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Given the foregoing, Complainant demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent has acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First, Respondent has suffered numerous adverse UDRP decisions as a respondent. Respondent’s repeated cybersquatting evidences a pattern of domain name abuse and suggests Respondent’s bad faith in the instant case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Tommy John, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA2001001878688 (Forum Feb. 6, 2020) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants).
Next and as mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses its confusingly similar <mypaymentus.com> domain names to address a website displaying hyperlinks to goods and/or services competing with those offered by Complainant. Doing so shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain names under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Zynex Medical, Inc. v. New Ventures Services, Corp, FA 1788042 (Forum July 2, 2018) (“The resolving webpage [] appears to display [competing] links such as “Electrical Stimulation” and “Physical Therapy Software.” Accordingly, the Panel agrees that Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business and attempted to commercially benefit off Complainant’s mark in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) & (iv).”); see also, HEB Grocery Company, LP v. Nikolay Schastenko / SEO Ukraine, FA 1789019 (Forum July 3, 2018) (“Complainant provides screenshots of the domain name’s resolving website and claims, without contradiction that Respondent commercially benefits from an “Affiliate Program” in which users are redirected to job-oriented websites such as “Snagajob” and “Monster.” Therefore, Respondent’s use of the <hebcareers.net> domain name to attract users for commercial gain demonstrates bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
As also mentioned above, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to perpetrate a phishing scheme. Using the <mypaymentus.com> domain name to unlawfully obtain personal and/or financial information indicates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“Respondent uses the <klabzuba-oilgas.com> domain to engage in phishing, which means Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Moreover, Respondent registered <mypaymentus.com> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the PAYMENTUS mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s evident targeting of Complainant’s PAYMENTUS trademark in registering <mypaymentus.com>. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's PAYMENTUS trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <mypaymentus.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <mypaymentus.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: August 31, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page