DECISION

 

Fair Isaac Corporation v. Steven Lamb

Claim Number: FA2403002087194

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Fair Isaac Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Ted Koshiol of Fair Isaac Corporation, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Steven Lamb ("Respondent"), Illinois, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ficoscore800.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 6, 2024; Forum received payment on March 6, 2024.

 

On March 6, 2024, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ficoscore800.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 March 7, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 27, 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@ficoscore800.com. Also on March 7, 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 28, 2024, 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:

 

FICO is a leading applied analytics company founded in 1956. Today, FICO's software and the widely used FICO® Score are used by thousands of businesses in nearly 120 countries.

 

Complainant registered the FICO mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). Complainant uses the domain names <fico.com> and <myfico.com> in connection with the sale of its credit-related services on the Internet.

 

Respondent's <ficoscore800.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it wholly incorporates the FICO mark and merely adds the suggestive term "score800" followed by the ".com" generic top-level-domain ("gTLD").

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <ficoscore800.com> domain name. Respondent has no relationship with FICO. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark. Respondent also does not use the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the domain name addresses a website concerning services that are related to, and potentially in competition with, some of the services offered by FICO under the FICO marks. Specifically, the website contains information related to credit repair.

 

Respondent registered and used the <ficoscore800.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent offers goods and services related to Complainant's business. Respondent had constructive as well as actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the FICO mark prior to registration of the at-issue domain name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the FICO 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 FICO trademark.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website promoting services related to credit repair.

 

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 confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it has a USPTO registration for its FICO trademark. Such registration is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in the FICO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Forum Apr. 17, 2006) ("Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.").

 

Respondent's <ficoscore800.com> domain name contains Complainant's FICO trademark followed by the term "score800" with all followed by the ".com" top-level domain name. The differences between Complainant's trademark and Respondent's at-issue domain name fail to distinguish the domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <ficoscore800.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's FICO trademark. 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, Countrywide Fin. Corp. v. Johnson & Sons Sys., FA 1073019 (Forum Oct. 24, 2007) (holding that the addition of the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com" was irrelevant).

 

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 <ficoscore800.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 interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name.

 

The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name ultimately reveals that the domain name's registrant is "Steven Lamb" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by the <ficoscore800.com> domain name. 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 that purports to offer credit repair related services. Such use of <ficoscore800.com> indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate non-commercial or fair use. See 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 demonstrates Respondent's lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, bad faith circumstances are present which lead the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

 

Respondent uses the confusingly similar at-issue domain name to deceive internet users into falsely believing that the domain name and its referenced website are sponsored by or associated with Complainant. Respondent offers credit repair services on its <ficoscore800.com> website that relate to, and are in potential competition with, Complainant's business. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name to capitalize on the confusion Respondent created regarding the sponsorship of <ficoscore800.com> to drive internet traffic to the domain name's website where Respondent offers its own services demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract internet users to its commercial website).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the FICO mark when it registered <ficoscore800.com> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark prior to registering the at-issue domain name is evident from the notoriety of such trademark and from Respondent's use of the domain name to offer services suggestive of Complainant business. Registering and using a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in FICO further shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <ficoscore800.com> 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, Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) ("Complainant contends Respondent's appropriation of Complainant's trademark was a clear intent to trade upon Complainant's reputation and goodwill in order to confuse Internet users. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant's mark prior to registration and this constitutes bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); 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 <ficoscore800.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: March 28, 2024