DECISION

 

CreditNinja Lending, LLC v. Theodor Hansen

Claim Number: FA2308002058452

PARTIES

Complainant is CreditNinja Lending, LLC ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Gregory J. Chinlund of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, United States. Respondent is Theodor Hansen ("Respondent"), United States.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <creditninjaloanusa.com>, registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp.

 

PANEL

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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 22, 2023; Forum received payment on August 22, 2023.

 

On August 28, 2023, Internet Domain Service BS Corp confirmed by email to Forum that the <creditninjaloanusa.com> domain name is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Internet Domain Service BS Corp has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet Domain Service BS Corp 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 September 1, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 21, 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@creditninjaloanusa.com. Also on September 1, 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 September 22, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a Chicago-based financial services company that provides online personal and installment loans and related financial services. Complainant has used the CREDITNINJA mark in connection with its services since 2018 and owns a United States trademark registration for the mark in standard character form. Complainant owns and uses the domain name <creditninja.com>.

 

The disputed domain name <creditninjaloanusa.com> was registered in January 2023. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. It is being used for a website entitled "creditninjaloanusa" that advertises personal loans. Complainant characterizes the services offered by Respondent as illegitimate and likely non-existent. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no business relationship with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark. Complainant also notes that Respondent registered the disputed domain name shortly after the decision was released in a separate proceeding involving the same parties and a similar domain name, see CreditNinja Lending, LLC v. Theodor Hansen, FA 2023513 (Forum Jan. 7, 2023) (ordering transfer of <ninjacreditusa.com>). Complainant alleges that Respondent is engaged in a pattern of bad faith domain registrations targeting financial services companies. See, e.g., Opportunity Financial, LLC v. Theodor Hansen, FA 2031504 (Forum March 13, 2023) (ordering transfer of <usaopploanslending.com>); CreditNinja Lending, LLC v. Theodor Hansen, FA 2023513, supra (ordering transfer of <ninjacreditusa.com>); Opportunity Financial, LLC v. Theodor Hansen, FA 2014370 (Forum Oct. 31, 2022) (ordering transfer of <opploanspro.com>); Opportunity Financial, LLC v. Theodor Hansen, FA 2005412 (Forum Aug. 26, 2022) (ordering transfer of <opploansusa.com>); Opportunity Financial, LLC v. Theodor Hansen, FA 2002970 (Aug. 8, 2022) (ordering transfer of <opploansnow.com>).

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <creditninjaloanusa.com> is confusingly similar to its CREDITNINJA 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.

 

FINDINGS

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.

 

DISCUSSION

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 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <creditninjaloanusa.com> incorporates Complainant's registered CREDITNINJA trademark, adding the generic term "loan," the geographic term "USA," and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., CreditNinja Lending, LLC v. Theodor Hansen, FA 2023513, supra (finding <ninjacreditusa.com> confusingly similar to CREDITNINJA); CreditNinja Lending, LLC v. anont Krajungthong / billionaire678.co.,ltd, FA 2017052 (Forum Nov. 18, 2022) (finding <creditusaninja.com> confusingly similar to CREDITNINJA); KMD Partners, LLC v. Jecaterina Dvorjanska / James Slavin, FA 1973392 (Forum Dec. 27, 2021) (finding <creditninja.loan> identical to CREDIT NINJA). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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 to pass off as Complainant and promote competing services, and possibly for other fraudulent purposes. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., CreditNinja Lending, LLC v. Theodor Hansen, FA 2023513, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); CreditNinja Lending, LLC v. anont Krajungthong / billionaire678.co.,ltd, supra (same); Opportunity Financial, LLC v. Theodor Hansen, FA 2005412, 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.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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 used a privacy registration service and what the Panel considers likely to be at least partially fictitious underlying registration data to register a domain name incorporating and obviously intended to cause confusion with Complainant's mark, doing so only days after receiving notice of an adverse decision in a separate dispute involving the same Complainant and trademark and a similar domain name. Respondent is using the domain name to pass off as Complainant and promote competing services, and possibly for other fraudulent purposes. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., CreditNinja Lending, LLC v. Theodor Hansen, FA 2023513, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances). The Panel so finds.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <creditninjaloanusa.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: September 25, 2023