DECISION

 

CreditNinja Lending, LLC v. Theodor Hansen

Claim Number: FA2310002067188

 

PARTIES

Complainant is CreditNinja Lending, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Kelley S. Gordon of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Theodor Hansen ("Respondent"), Georgia, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

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

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of this knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 20, 2023; Forum received payment on October 20, 2023.

 

On October 23, 2023, Internet Domain Service BS Corp confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <creditninjaloansus.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 October 30, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 20, 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@creditninjaloansus.com. Also on October 30, 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 November 21, 2023 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:

 

Complainant CreditNinja Lending, LLC d/b/a CreditNinja is a Chicago-based financial services company that provides a variety of personal and installment loans through a convenient and efficient online process.

 

Complainant has trademark rights in CREDITNINJA through registration of such mark with the USPTO.

 

Respondent's <creditninjaloansus.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CREDITNINJA trademark as Respondent merely adds the terms "loans" and "us" followed by the ".com" top-level to form the domain name. The addition of such terms is likely to further confuse the domain name and trademark.

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Respondent does not use the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, instead Respondent uses the domain name to address a webpage purportedly offering financial and loan services similar to services offered by Complainant and thereby attempts to pass itself off as Complainant. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Respondent does not use the domain name for any legitimate or fair use. Moreover, Complainant's did not authorize Respondent to use its trademark in any way.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant and offer illegitimate financial and loan provision services under Complainant's trademark. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to disrupt and compete with Complainant's business by attracting consumers searching for Complainant to Respondent's <creditninjaloansus.com> website. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to capitalize on internet users that are confused as to the sponsorship of the at-issue domain name and its website. Respondent has a pattern of registering domain name that are confusingly similar to the trademarks of others and has been subject to multiple adverse UDRP decisions. Additionally, in light of Respondent's use of the domain name to address a website based on Complainant's services and having Respondent's trademark displayed throughout, Respondent was aware of Complainant's CREDITNINJA trademark prior to when it registered <creditninjaloansus.com> as a domain name further demonstrating Respondent's bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the CREDITNINJA mark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the CREDITNINJA trademark.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that offers the same line of products as Complainant does.

 

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 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The at-issue domain name is identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant's USPTO registration for CREDITNINJA is conclusive evidence of its rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (stating, "There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant's rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and its vested interests in a mark.").

 

Respondent's <creditninjaloansus.com> domain name contains Complainant's entire CREDITNINJA trademark followed by the terms "loans" and "us" with all followed by the ".com" top-level domain name. The differences between Complainant's CreditNinja trademark and Respondent's at-issue domain name fail to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <creditninjaloansus.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CREDITNINJA trademark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist 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).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the <creditninjaloansus.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum Jun. 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark into any domain name).

 

The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the registrant of <creditninjaloansus.com> as "Theodor Hansen" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by <creditninjaloansus.com>. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website related to the same line of business as CREDITNINJA. Respondent's use of the <creditninjaloansus.com> in this manner constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Invesco Ltd. v. Premanshu Rana, FA 1733167 (Forum July 10, 2017) ("Use of a domain name to divert Internet users to a competing website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use."); see also, Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent's use of the complainant's LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect internet users to respondent's own website for commercial gain does not constitute either 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)).

 

Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent's lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, there is evidence from which the Panel may conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.

 

First, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that promotes the same product line as Complainant. Such use of the domain name is disruptive to Complainant's business and demonstrates Respondent's bad faith regarding the at-issue domain name per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent passes off as the complainant and offers online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant's business); see also, Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting internet users to the respondent's competing website); see also, Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA 1579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) ("Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.").

 

Next, Respondent has suffered multiple adverse decisions as a respondent in prior UDRP proceedings. Respondent's history thus reveals a pattern of domain name abuse that points to Respondent's bad faith in the instant case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1464477 (Forum Nov. 30, 2012) (finding where the record reflected that the respondent had been a respondent in other UDRP proceedings in which it was ordered to transfer disputed domain names to various complainants established a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names and stood as evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the CREDITNINJA mark when it registered <creditninjaloansus.com> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's CREDITNINJA trademark and from Respondent's use of <creditninjaloansus.com> to address a website offering products that are similar or identical to Complainant's offering. Respondent's registration and use of <creditninjaloansus.com> with knowledge of Complainant's rights in CREDITNINJA further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith pursuant to 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 had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: November 24, 2023