DECISION

 

Chatham Financial Corp. v. Jonathan white

Claim Number: FA2402002084409

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Chatham Financial Corp. ("Complainant"), represented by Jordan LaVine of Flaster Greenberg PC, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Jonathan white ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <chathamfinancial.pro> and <chathamfinancal.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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 February 19, 2024; Forum received payment on February 19, 2024.

 

On February 19, 2024, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to Forum that the <chathamfinancial.pro> and <chathamfinancal.com> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 February 20, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 11, 2024 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@chathamfinancial.pro and postmaster@chathamfinancal.com. Also on February 20, 2024, 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 registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts.

 

An email was received from Respondent on February 27, 2024, in which Respondent disavowed any claim to the domain names and stated that "they look like phishing web sites."

 

Having received no formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On March 12, 2024, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a financial risk management advisory and technology firm that serves more than 3,500 companies and handles over $1 trillion in transaction volume annually. Complainant has used CHATHAM and CHATHAM FINANCIAL in connection with its services since at least as early as 1991. Complainant owns a United States trademark registration for CHATHAM and has a pending application for CHATHAM FINANCIAL. Complainant also asserts common law rights in these marks arising from use, advertising, and promotion.

 

The disputed domain names <chathamfinancial.pro> and <chathamfinancal.com> were registered in January 2024. The names are registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain names resolve to websites hosted by the registrar that are composed of pay-per-click advertisements to similar or related services. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's marks.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain names <chathamfinancial.pro> and <chathamfinancal.com> are identical or confusingly similar to its CHATHAM and CHATHAM FINANCIAL marks; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are 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 names <chathamfinancial.pro> and <chathamfinancal.com> incorporate Complainant's registered CHATHAM mark and correspond to Complainant's putative CHATHAM FINANCIAL trademark with only minor alterations, including the addition of the generic term "financial" (or a misspelling thereof) and a top-level domain. Such alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain names and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Capital One Financial Corp. v. Domain Administrator, WDAPL, D2023-5041 (WIPO Feb. 9, 2024) (finding <capitalonefinancial.com> confusingly similar to CAPITAL ONE); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Mike Morgan, FA 1426490 (Forum Mar. 7, 2012) (finding <myallstatefinancal.com> confusingly similar to ALLSTATE). The Panel considers each of the disputed domain names 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 names, 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 names incorporate Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and their sole apparent use has been to display pay-per-click links, most of which appear to relate to competing services. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Capital One Financial Corp. v. Domain Administrator, WDAPL, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Mike Morgan, supra (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, 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 names.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered a 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 infers to be at least partially fictitious underlying registration data to register two domain names incorporating Complainant's registered mark. Respondent has not made any active use of the domain names other than to host pages composed of pay-per-click links to competing services, and has not come forward with any alternative explanation for the selection of the names or their intended use. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Capital One Financial Corp. v. Domain Administrator, WDAPL, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Mike Morgan, supra (same). 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 <chathamfinancial.pro> and <chathamfinancal.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: March 14, 2024