Fair Isaac Corporation v. Geraldo Montes Jimenez
Claim Number: FA2211002018593
Complainant is Fair Isaac Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Ted Koshiol of Fair Isaac Corporation, US. Respondent is Geraldo Montes Jimenez (“Respondent”), MX.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ficomix.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 1, 2022; Forum received payment on November 2, 2022.
On November 2, 2022, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ficomix.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 November 2, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 22, 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@ficomix.com. Also on November 2, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 28, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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
1. Respondent’s <ficomix.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s FICO mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ficomix.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <ficomix.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant, Fair Isaac Corporation is in the applied analytics industry. Complainant holds a registration for the FICO mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,273,432, registered August 31, 1999).
Respondent registered the <ficomix.com> domain name on March 18, 2021, and uses it to compete with 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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the FICO mark based on registration with the USPTO. See Red Hat, Inc. v. Muhammad Shahzad, FA 1787738 (Forum June 19, 2018) (“Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is sufficient to demonstrate rights to a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”)
Respondent’s <ficomix.com> domain name uses the FICO mark and adds the word “MIX” and the gTLD “.com”. These changes do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Empowered Medical Solutions, Inc. d/b/a QRS-Direct and QRS Magnovit AG v. NULL NULL / QUANTRON RESONANCE SYSTEMS / JIM ANDERSON / HTR / unknown HTR / HTR, FA 1784937 (FORUM June 8, 2018) (“Adding or removing descriptive terms or a gTLD is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”) Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <ficomix.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s FICO mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”).
Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <ficomix.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s FICO mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Geraldo Montes Jimenez.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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 Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
Complainant contends that Respondent also does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use but rather to offer competing goods/services. Using a disputed domain name to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant 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). See Alcon, Inc. v. ARanked, FA 1306493 (Forum Mar. 18, 2010) (“The Panel finds that capitalizing on the well-known marks of Complainant by attracting internet users to its disputed domain names where Respondent sells competing products of Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”) Complainant provides screenshots showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer competing products/services. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent disrupts its business through competing use of the disputed domain name. Appropriating a complainant’s mark to divert complainant’s customers to respondent’s competing business constitutes bad faith disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, FA1762308 (Forum January 9, 2018) (Finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer competing loan services disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant also argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the FICO mark. The Panel agrees, noting Respondent’s direct competition with Complainant, and finds bad faith under 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 "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
The Panel finds that 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 <ficomix.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: November 29, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page