DECISION

 

Fair Isaac Corporation v. Jonathan Stubbs / Business Capital Academy Inc.

Claim Number: FA2402002084664

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Fair Isaac Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Ted Koshiol of Fair Isaac Corporation, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Jonathan Stubbs / Business Capital Academy Inc. ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ficoworx.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

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

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 21, 2024; Forum received payment on February 21, 2024.

 

On February 21, 2024, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ficoworx.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 February 22, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 13, 2024 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@ficoworx.com. Also on February 22, 2024, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. Respondent did however send a communication to the Forum, see below.

 

On March 14, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it offers applied analytics services. Complainant was founded in 1956 on the premise that data, used intelligently, can improve business decisions. Today, Complainant's software and the widely used FICO® Score operationalize analytics, enabling thousands of businesses in nearly 120 countries to uncover new opportunities, make timely decisions that matter, and execute them at scale. Most leading banks and credit card issuers rely on Complainant's solutions, as do insurers, retailers, telecommunications providers, automotive companies, public agencies, and organizations in other industries. Complainant also serves consumers through online services that enable people to access and understand their FICO Scores, the standard measure in the U.S. of consumer credit risk, empowering them to increase financial literacy and manage their financial health. In fiscal year 2023, Complainant had revenues of $1.51 billion and employed approximately 3,400 people in offices worldwide. In October 2023, FICO's FICO Platform product received the Banking Innovation of the Year Platinum Award in the Future Digital Awards for Fintech & Payments 2023 category. In July 2023, FICO was named Category Leader for Enterprise Fraud Solutions in the Chartis Enterprise Fraud Solutions Market Update and Vendor Landscape report from research firm Chartis for the fourth year in a row. Also in July 2023, FICO was named by Global Finance magazine as one of The Innovators 2023 for its use of blockchain to manage and monitor AI development. FICO Platform was named among the top AI decisioning platforms in The Forrester Wave™: AI Decisioning Platforms, Q2 2023 report. In December 2022, FICO won the Machine Learning in Credit and Collections Award at the 2022 Credit & Collections Technology Awards. In November 2022, FICO ranked fifth in Chartis's annual RiskTech100® report of the world's leading risk technology providers. FICO also was awarded first place in six categories including Innovation, Artificial Intelligence Applications, Financial Crime – Enterprise Fraud and Retail Credit Analytics; with first-time wins in Innovation – Retail Finance and Innovation – AI and Decision Management Platform. FICO won the Machine Learning in Credit and Collections Award at the 2022 Credit & Collections Technology Awards, held in November 2022. In July 2022, FICO was named the Best Technology Provider for Data Analytics at the 2022 Credit Awards by Credit Strategy. Complainant's FICO Scores are the most used credit bureau scores in the world. FICO Scores are available through the major consumer reporting agencies in the United States as well as in other countries worldwide. The goods and services offered in connection with the Complainant's FICO mark include, but are not limited to: predictive analytics designed to detect patterns such as risk and fraud, optimization analytics used to improve the design of decision logics or "strategies," consumer credit solutions, fraud, compliance and security management solutions, data management and transaction profiling solutions, business-to-business scoring solutions and services, customer management software, consulting tools, marketing applications, originations applications, collections and recovery applications, communications applications, and professional services associated with all these. Complainant's sales of products and services in connection with its FICO mark since it became the company's house mark and trade name in 2009 exceed $11,000,000,000 globally and $7,300,000,000 in the U.S. Complainant has rights in the FICO mark through its registration of the mark in the United States in 1999. The mark is well known.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to its FICO mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the term "worx" (a misspelling of "works") and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the FICO mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage that offers competing services. Specifically, the website contains information related to credit reports, credit scores, and credit repair. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to disrupt Complainant's business by offering competing services at the resolving website. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the FICO mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. In its communication to the Forum, Respondent, in pertinent part, offers to sell the disputed domain name for USD 15,000.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has registered trademarks for the mark FICO and uses it to offer credit-related analytics services. The mark was registered in 1999.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2023.

 

The resolving website offers services that compete with those of Complainant.

 

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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's FICO mark in its entirety and merely adds the misspelled generic term "worx" and a gTLD to the mark. The addition of a generic or descriptive term (even if misspelled) and/or meaningless letters and a gTLD to a mark is generally insufficient to negate confusingly similar under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Milliman, Inc v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org/Zhichao Yang, D2018-2178 (WIPO, Nov. 17, 2018) (finding that the addition of "benefis", "bennefits", "bnefits", and "benefits" does not distinguish a disputed domain name from the complainant's trademarks and ordering the transfer of <millimanbenefis.com>, <millimanbennefits.com>, <millimanbnefits.com>, and <millimannbenefits.com>); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") '.com.'  These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Business Capital Academy Inc.". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The resolving website offers services that compete with those of Complainant. Specifically, the website contains information related to credit reports, credit scores, and credit repair. Past panels have declined to find a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name when a respondent diverts traffic to a site that offers goods or services that are in competition with those of a complainant. See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute 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)."). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website offers services that compete with those of Complainant. A respondent's use of a disputed domain name to drive Internet users to a commercial site offering goods or services that compete with those of a complainant may indicate bad faith attraction for commercial gain per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 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."); see also OneWest Bank N.A. v. Matthew Foglia, FA 1611449 (Forum Apr. 26, 2015) (holding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website which competed with the complainant was evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

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 <ficoworx.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: March 14, 2024