Rocket Mortgage, LLC v. Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd
Claim Number: FA2307002053469
Complainant is Rocket Mortgage, LLC (“Complainant”), USA, represented by David K. Caplan, California, USA. Respondent is Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd (“Respondent”), Delaware, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <quickenloansus.com>, registered with Above.com Pty Ltd..
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.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 17, 2023; Forum received payment on July 17, 2023.
On July 20, 2023, Above.com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <quickenloansus.com> domain name is registered with Above.com Pty Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Above.com Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Above.com Pty 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 July 25, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 14, 2023 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@quickenloansus.com. Also on July 25, 2023, 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 August 15, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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
i) Complainant is a well-known provider of lending services. Complainant has rights in the mark QUICKEN LOANS (Reg. No. 2,528,282, registered on January 8, 2002) based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates the QUICKEN LOANS mark in its entirety, merely adding the geographic term “us” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to form the disputed domain name.
ii) Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s QUICKEN LOANS mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with various click-through revenue websites that contain numerous links to offerings that purport to specifically relate to financial services.
iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s QUICKEN LOANS mark with the addition of a geographical term, and the disputed domain name was acquired long after Complainant’s QUICKEN LOANS mark became well-known. Respondent has targeted Complainant from the notoriety of Complainant’s QUICKEN LOANS name and mark. Respondent has used the disputed domain name for profit to redirect Internet users to a click through revenue websites. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of the QUICKEN LOANS mark. Prior decisions against Respondent show a pattern of bad faith registration and use.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. The disputed domain name was registered on July 16, 2022.
2. Complainant has established rights in the mark QUICKEN LOANS (Reg. No. 2,528,282, registered on January 8, 2002) based upon registration with the USPTO.
3. Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with various click-through revenue websites that contain numerous links to offerings that purport to specifically relate to financial services.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 claims rights in the mark QUICKEN LOANS (Reg. No. 2,528,282, registered on January 8, 2002) based upon registration with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is generally sufficient in establishing rights in the mark. Since Complainant has provided evidence of trademark registration with the USPTO, the Panel finds Complainant has established rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues the disputed domain name <quickenloansus.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUICKEN LOANS mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a geographic term along with the “.com” gTLD is insufficient in differentiating from the mark. See Franklin Covey Co. v. franklincoveykorea, FA 1774660 (Forum Apr. 11, 2018) (finding that the <franklincoveykorea.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the FRANKLIN COVEY mark, as “[t]he addition of a geographic term and a gTLD do not negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and adds a geographic term “us.” Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUICKEN LOANS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then 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 claims Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s QUICKEN LOANS mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name 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)). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See 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). The unmasked WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd .” Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant argues Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name is resolved to a website hosting various click-through revenue websites that contain numerous links to offerings that purport to specifically relate to financial services. The Panel finds that use of the disputed domain name to host competing and/or unrelated hyperlinks does not constitute bona fide offerings of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See McGuireWoods LLP v. Mykhailo Loginov / Loginov Enterprises d.o.o, FA1412001594837 (Forum Jan. 22, 2015) (“The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to feature parked hyperlinks containing links in competition with Complainant’s legal services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also SimScale GmbH v. Oliver Sharp, FA1401001537384 (Forum Feb. 3, 2014) (holding that the respondent’s “use of the disputed domain name to promote links to unrelated third parties is not protected as 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).”); see additionally Team Health, LLC v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, FA2001001878451(Forum Jan. 13, 2020) (finding the display of generic links such as “Employee Health Insurance” and “Employee Health Benefits” was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under UDRP Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)). Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent’s webpage, which feature hyperlinks advertising multiple third parties, some of which compete directly with Complainant. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for 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).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel notes that Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with various click-through revenue websites that contain numerous links to offerings that purport to specifically relate to financial services. The Panel finds that hosting competing or unrelated hyperlinks for financial gains is evidence of bad faith disruption of a complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(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 For Your Ease Only, Inc v. Expired domain caught by auction winner.***Maybe for sale on Dynadot Marketplace*** c/o Dynadot, FA 1791755 (Forum July 16, 2018) (“[T]he evidence shows that Respondent previously used the domain names to resolve to websites which hosted links to Complainant’s competitors; this demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).”); see additionally 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).”). Here, Complainant provides sample screenshots of Respondent’s website, showing that Respondent hosts hyperlinks for various click-through revenue websites that contain numerous links to offerings that purport to specifically relate to financial services. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Complainant further contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of the QUICKEN LOANS mark. The Panel notes that Complainant’s success and excellence have been recognized in the form of numerous awards. Complainant’s track record of excellence has built enormous amounts of goodwill in the QUICKEN LOANS name and mark. Complainant’s net client retention rate was 96% over the 12 months that ended March 31, 2023. Complainant has built substantial goodwill through its numerous community initiatives aimed toward driving job growth and supporting local entrepreneurs, and by being a good corporate citizen generally. The Panel infers, due to the notoriety of Complainant’s mark and the manner of use of the disputed domain name that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the QUICKEN LOANS mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name, and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain in bad faith under 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 <quickenloansus.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist
Dated: August 16, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page