Rocket Mortgage, LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico
Claim Number: FA2301002026809
Complainant is Rocket Mortgage, LLC ("Complainant"), United States, represented by David K. Caplan of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, United States. Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico ("Respondent"), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <servicingsupportquickenloans.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 9, 2023; Forum received payment on January 9, 2023.
On January 10, 2023, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <servicingsupportquickenloans.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 January 13, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 2, 2023 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@servicingsupportquickenloans.com. Also on January 13, 2023, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 February 9, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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
Complainant is a provider of lending services, ranking as the largest mortgage lender in the United States. Complainant has used the QUICKEN LOANS trademark in connection with lending services since 1999. A United States trademark registration issued in 2002 for QUICKEN LOANS in standard character form; Complainant is the exclusive, perpetual licensee of that mark in the United States. Complainant asserts that the mark has become famous, and notes that its fame has been recognized in prior proceedings under the Policy. See, e.g., Quicken Loans Inc. v. Joshua Gasteratos, FA 1929824 (Forum Mar. 1, 2021).
The disputed domain name <servicingsupportquickenloans.com> was registered in October 2022. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name is being used for websites composed of pay-per-click links related to financial services, some of which compete directly with Complainant's products and services. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not licensed or permitted to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <servicingsupportquickenloans.com> is confusingly similar to its QUICKEN LOANS mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <servicingsupportquickenloans.com> incorporates Complainant's registered QUICKEN LOANS trademark, omitting the space and adding the generic terms "servicing" and "support" and the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Rocket Mortgage, LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1988538 (Forum Apr. 22, 2022) (finding <quivkenloan.com> confusingly similar to QUICKEN LOANS); Taboola.com Ltd. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1996657 (Forum June 21, 2022) (finding <supporttaboola.com> confusingly similar to TABOOLA); Capital One Financial Corp. v. Administrator Dom / Muscari Holding Ltd., FA 1647367 (Forum Dec. 26, 2015) (finding <servicingcapitalone.com> confusingly similar to CAPITAL ONE). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used for the sole apparent purpose of displaying pay-per-click links related to financial services, some of which compete directly with Complainant's products and services. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Taboola.com Ltd. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Rocket Mortgage, LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1988538, supra (same); Capital One Financial Corp. v. Administrator Dom / Muscari Holding Ltd., supra (same).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant’s registered mark without authorization and is using it to display related and competing pay-per-click links. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Taboola.com Ltd. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Rocket Mortgage, LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1988538, supra (same). Furthermore, Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use, including at least one instance involving the same mark that is the subject of this proceeding. See, e.g., Rocket Mortgage, LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1989376 (Forum May 2, 2022) (noting “hundreds of UDRP decisions” adverse to Respondent); Rocket Mortgage, LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1988538, supra (ordering transfer of <quivkenloan.com>). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <servicingsupportquickenloans.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: February 11, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page