DECISION

 

Rocket Mortgage, LLC v. Jay Diamond / Bloom Lending, LLC

Claim Number: FA2403002086515

PARTIES

Complainant is Rocket Mortgage, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by David K. Caplan, California, USA. Respondent is Jay Diamond / Bloom Lending, LLC ("Respondent"), Arizona, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <rocketmortgage.ai>, 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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 2, 2024; Forum received payment on March 1, 2024.

 

On March 4, 2024, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <rocketmortgage.ai> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 March 8, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 28, 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@rocketmortgage.ai. Also on March 8, 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 response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On March 29, 2024, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

i) Complainant is a well-known provider of lending services. Complainant has rights in the mark ROCKET MORTGAGE, among others, based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 5,013,488, registered August 2, 2016). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it contains the ROCKET MORTGAGE mark in its entirety, merely adding the ".ai" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") 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 ROCKET MORTGAGE 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 used the disputed domain name to offer services related to identifying mortgage rates that compete with Complainant.

 

iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name to offer purported identifying mortgage rates that compete with Complainant providing personal loan and financing options to consumers. Respondent has set up email in connection with the disputed domain name that further evidences bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on August 30, 2019.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the mark ROCKET MORTGAGE (Reg. No. 5,013,488, registered on August 2, 2016) based upon registration with the USPTO.

 

3. The disputed domain name's resolving website offered services related to identifying mortgage rates that compete with Complainant.

 

4. The disputed domain name currently resolves to an error message.

 

5. Respondent has set up email in connection with the disputed domain name.

 

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

Complainant asserts rights in the mark ROCKET MORTGAGE (Reg. No. 5,013,488, registered August 2, 2016) based upon registration with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is a valid showing of rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Since Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the ROCKET MORTGAGE mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues that the  disputed domain name <rocketmortgage.ai> is confusingly similar to Complainant's ROCKET MORTGAGE mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety merely adding the ".ai" gTLD. The addition of a gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ROCKET MORTGAGE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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 ROCKET MORTGAGE 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, FA 1613011 (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, FA 1574905 (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 "Bloom Lending, LLC." 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, instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer purported services related to identifying mortgage rates that compete with Complainant providing personal loan and financing options to consumers in connection with its ROCKET MORTGAGE mark. The use of a disputed domain name to offer goods and/or services that compete with a complainant's business is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Dan Stanley Saturne, FA 1785085 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("Respondent's use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use" where "Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name to offer for sale competing services."); see also 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)."). Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name's resolving website which purported to offer services related to identifying mortgage rates that compete with Complainant. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any 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.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name to offer services related to identifying mortgage rates that compete with Complainant. The use of a disputed domain name to offer competing services and/or goods is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to 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 Bank of America, National Association v. Marcos Alexis Nelson, FA 1621654 (Forum July 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where it used the disputed domain name to promote its business in real estate and financial services, which were services that competed with the services the complainant offered). The Panel recalls that Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name's resolving website, which offered services related to identifying mortgage rates that compete with Complainant providing personal loan and financing options to consumers in connection with its ROCKET MORTGAGE mark. As such, the Panel finds Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to 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 <rocketmortgage.ai> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: April 1, 2024