Pine Financial Group v. SpringBase Technology
Claim Number: FA2211002020267
Complainant is Pine Financial Group (“Complainant”), represented by Vanessa A. Ignacio of Lowenstein Sandler LLP, New Jersey, USA. Respondent is SpringBase Technology (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <pinefunding.org>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she 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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 14, 2022; Forum received payment on November 14, 2022.
On November 15, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <pinefunding.org> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 18, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 8, 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@pinefunding.org. Also on November 18, 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 December 15, 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 <pinefunding.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PINE FINANCIAL GROUP mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <pinefunding.org> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <pinefunding.org> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant holds common law rights in the PINE FINANCIAL GROUP mark, in use since 2008.
Respondent registered the <pinefunding.org> domain name on October 12, 2022, and uses it to pass off as Complainant and to conduct a phishing scheme.
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 asserts common law rights in the PINE FINANCIAL GROUP mark. Registration of a mark with a government authority is not required to demonstrate rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA 1625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“Complainant does not claim to own a trademark registered with a governmental authority. However, Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require such registration if a complainant can demonstrate having common law rights.”). Evidence of secondary meaning in a mark can substantiate a finding of common law rights. See Goodwin Procter LLP v. Amritpal Singh, FA 1736062 (Forum July 18, 2017) (holding that the complainant demonstrated its common law rights in the GOODWIN mark through evidence of “long time continuous use of the mark, significant related advertising expenditures, as well as other evidence of the mark’s having acquired secondary meaning.”). Complainant provides uncontested evidence showing that the PINE FINANCIAL GROUP mark is recognized by consumers and serves to identify Complainant as a source of financial services through prominent and extensive use, promotion, and advertisements since 2008. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established common law rights in the PINE FINANCIAL GROUP mark.
Respondent’s <pinefunding.org> domain name uses the dominant word in the PINE FINANCIAL GROUP mark, namely PINE, and adds the descriptive word “funding” and the “.org” gTLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.); see also The Pros Closet, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1616518 (Forum June 3, 2015) (finding confusing similarity where the <proscloset.com> domain name merely omitted the first term (“the”) from Complainant’s THE PROS CLOSET mark, eliminated spacing between words, and added the “.com” gTLD.). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <pinefunding.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PINE FINANCIAL GROUP 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 has no rights or legitimate interests in the <pinefunding.org> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the PINE FINANCIAL GROUP mark. The Panel notes that a privacy service was used by Respondent, but was lifted as a result of the commencement of this proceeding. The WHOIS information of record now identifies Respondent as “SpringBase Technology.” The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <pinefunding.org> domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration); see also 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).
Complainant also argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses it to pass off as Complainant and to conduct a phishing scheme. Neither passing off nor phishing constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Google Inc. v. Pritam Singh / Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd., FA 1660771 (Forum Mar. 17, 2016) (agreeing that respondent has not shown any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) as the respondent used the complainant’s mark and logo on a resolving website containing offers for technical support and password recovery services, and soliciting Internet users’ personal information). Complainant provides screenshot evidence showing that the website at <pinefunding.org> mimics Complainant’s own website and solicits personal information. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent has failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel finds that complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <pinefunding.org> domain name in bad faith to engage in a phishing scheme. The Panel agrees and finds 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).”).
Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of a privacy service to mask his identity also shows bad faith. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s attempt to hide its identity when registering the disputed domain name also indicates bad faith. See Phoenix Niesley-Lindgren Watt v. Contact Privacy Inc., Customer 0150049249, FA 1800231 (Forum Sept. 6. 2018) (“In a commercial context, using a WHOIS privacy service raises the rebuttable presumption of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. An honest merchant in the marketplace does not generally try to conceal the merchant’s identity. Good faith requires honesty in fact. Respondent did nothing to rebut this presumption of bad faith. Therefore, the Panel will find bad faith registration and use for this reason.”).
Complainant claims that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the PINE FINANCIAL GROUP mark when it registered the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees, noting that Respondent copied Complainant’s website content, and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”).
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 <pinefunding.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: December 16, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page