DECISION

 

Chime Financial, Inc. v. Shi Lei

Claim Number: FA2501002136283

PARTIES

Complainant is Chime Financial, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by AJ Schumacher of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Shi Lei ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <chimecreditbuilder.com>, registered with Spaceship, Inc.

 

PANEL

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

 

Petter Rindforth as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 21, 2025; Forum received payment on January 21, 2025.

 

On January 23, 2025, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <chimecreditbuilder.com> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, 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 January 23, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 12, 2025 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@chimecreditbuilder.com. Also on January 23, 2025, 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 February 13, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Petter Rindforth 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 is a financial technology company, founded in 2012. One of Complainants core product is its Chime "Credit Builder" Secured Visa® Credit Card.

 

Complainant has several valid US Trademark Registrations for the CHIME trademark, as well in other countries. In addition, the Complainant is the owner of several domain names with the CHIME trademark included, such as <chimecard.com>, <chimebank.com>, and <chime.com>.

 

The CHIME trademark has been prominently featured in online and print advertisements, promotional campaigns, and in well-known and highly popular publications and programs, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Forbes, USA Today, Tech Crunch, CNBC, Bloomberg, and CNN, among many others. Chime was also recently named consumers' favorite brand in the "neobanking and neobrokerage" category on Times' World's Best Brands list and was included in Inc. Magazine's Best in Business list for Financial Services and Innovation & Technology.

 

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's well-known and registered CHIME trademark.

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith long after Complainant began using and registering the CHIME trademarks and after Complainant's CHIME trademarks became well known. It is indisputable that the domain name was registered and is used in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's prior rights in its CHIME trademarks and for the express purpose of trading on the goodwill of Complainant's trademarks.

 

The domain name resolves to a webpage hosting hyperlinks that display advertising for, and redirect visitors to, third-party websites and services, including at least some third-party websites and services that are competing with, or are otherwise similar or related to, Complainant's solutions offered under its CHIME trademarks.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because (i) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain; and (ii) Respondent's use of the domain does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods/services, nor does it constitute a non-commercial use or fair use of the domain.

 

The evidence shows that Respondent "intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users" to the Domain "by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of" the Domain, the associated website, and/or Respondent's activities.

 

Respondent had constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in its

CHIME trademarks by virtue of Complainant's U.S. registrations for the same.

 

Respondent's actual knowledge is further evident given that the Domain combines Complainant's CHIME trademark with the wording "Credit Builder," which clearly relates to Complainant and its "Credit Builder" offering.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of several registered trademarks for CHIME, including but not limited to the following U.S. trademark registrations:

 

No. 4,728,805 CHIME (word), registered on April 28, 2015 for goods and services in Intl Classes 9 and 36, and

No. 6,053,385 CHIME (word), registered on May 12, 2020 for goods and services in Intl Classes 9 and 36.

 

The disputed domain name <chimecreditbuilder.com> was registered on June 30, 2020.

 

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 Complainant claims rights to the CHIME trademark based upon registration with the USPTO. Registration with USPTO sufficiently establishes rights in a trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant's USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Complainant provides copies of its USPTO registrations for the CHIME trademarks (e.g.,

Reg. No. 4,728,805, registered on April 28, 2015). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the CHIME trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent's <chimecreditbuilder.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CHIME trademark as the domain name fully incorporates the trademark, merely adding the descriptive words "credit builder". Registration of a domain name that contains a trademark and adds a generic term and a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from the trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company v. Waseem A Ali / Micron Web Services, FA 1785616 (Forum June 8, 2018) (finding the <starbucksreal.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the STARBUCKS mark, as "the addition of the generic term 'real'  to Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy."); see also See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them."). 

 

In this case, it is also noted that the added words "Credit builder" refers to Complainant's services, and therefore further also refer to Complainant's trademark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <chimecreditbuilder.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CHIME trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations in respect of the second element of the Policy, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <chimecreditbuilder.com> domain name because Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's  CHIME trademark. 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 trademark 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 WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Shi Lei". Therefore, the Panel find that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

As shown by Complainant, Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, it resolves to a parked web page with sponsored, click-through links. Such use can never be the base of legitimate interest.

 

Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent does not provide a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent uses the domain to host pay-per-click hyperlinks on the resolving webpage. Using a disputed domain name to host parked, click-through links is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent's domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant's services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes); see also Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant's business). 

 

As noted above, in the present case, Complainant provides screenshots showing the disputed domain resolves to a parked page with pay-per-click hyperlinks to a variety of third-parties. Further, Complainant believes that Respondent benefits commercially from these links. The Panel agrees with the Complainant's conclusion, and finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <chimecreditbuilder.com>  domain name in bad faith because, as noted above, Respondent diverts Internet users to various websites for commercial gain and thereby also confuses users as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and endorsement of the services offered through links on Respondent's website.

 

The use of a disputed domain name to divert Internet users for commercial gain and confuse consumers is clear evidence of bad faith under both Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Maricopa Cmty. Coll. Dist. v. College.com, LLC, FA 536190 (Forum Sept. 22, 2005) ("The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to a competing website. Because Respondent's domain name is identical to Complainant's PHOENIX COLLEGE mark, Internet users accessing Respondent's domain name may become confused as to Complainant's affiliation with the resulting website. Thus, Respondent's use of the <phoenixcollege.com> domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Forum Nov. 11, 2003) ("Respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert Internet users to a competitor's website. It is a reasonable inference that Respondent's purpose of registration and use was to either disrupt or create confusion for Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).").

 

Based on the arguments and evidence provided by Complainant, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

Furthermore, Complainant contends that Respondent had constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the CHIME trademark. Per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), although constructive notice is not sufficient to support a bad faith finding, actual knowledge may be found based on the use made of the mark. See Deep Foods, Inc. v. Jamruke, LLC, FA 648190 (Forum Apr. 10, 2006) (stating that while mere constructive knowledge is insufficient to support a finding of bad faith, where the circumstances indicate that the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant's mark when it registered the domain name, panels can find bad faith).

 

In the present case, the Panel finds that a) Respondent incorporated the entire trademark in the disputed domain name, and b) added descriptive words that are directly related to Complainant's services.

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the trademark, and the Panel finds bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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

 

 

 

Petter Rindforth, Panelist

Dated: February 27, 2025