DECISION

 

CreditNinja Lending, LLC v. Registration Private / Domains By Proxy, LLC

Claim Number: FA2502002142579

 

PARTIES

Complainant is CreditNinja Lending, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Kelley S. Gordon of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Registration Private / Domains By Proxy, LLC ("Respondent"), Arizona, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <creditninja.ai>, registered with 1API GmbH.

 

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 February 27, 2025; Forum received payment on February 27, 2025.

 

On March 4, 2025, 1API GmbH confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <creditninja.ai> domain name is registered with 1API GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 1API GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the 1API GmbH 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 4, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 24, 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@creditninja.ai. Also on March 4, 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 March 25, 2025, 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 in part as follows:

 

Complainant CreditNinja Lending, LLC d/b/a CreditNinja is a Chicago-based financial services company that provides a variety of personal and installment loans through a convenient and efficient online process.

 

Complainant has trademark rights in CREDITNINJA through registration of such mark with the USPTO.

 

Respondent's <creditninja.ai> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CREDITNINJA trademark as Respondent merely adds the the ".ai" top-level to form the domain name.

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Respondent does not use the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to divert users away from Complainant's legitimate website to a parking page containing pay-per-click links. Complainant thus fails to make active use of the domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Respondent does not use the domain name for any legitimate or fair use. Complainant's did not authorize Respondent to use its trademark in any way. Further, Respondent failed to discharge its duty to select, register, and use a domain name that does not infringe the rights of a third party.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent holds the domain name passively which is evidence of bad faith. The at-issue domain name wholly incorporates registered mark, which negates any presumption of Respondent's legitimate intentions. Respondent intentionally attempts to disrupt and compete with Complainant's business. Respondent does so by using a domain name that wholly incorporates Complainant's mark. Respondent's registration of at-issue domain name is likely to cause confusion and divert Internet users intending to visit <creditninja.com>. Respondent registration of a domain name that wholly incorporates Complainant's CREDITNINJA trademark to profit from advertising and pay-per-click links thereby generating revenue through the misappropriation of CREDITNINJA's goodwill. Further, Registrant is ultimately responsible for the content served through a domain name, regardless of the automated nature of the advertisements, third party provider of the advertising links, or if Respondent did not receive the pay-per-click revenue personally. As a result, Respondent's actions are in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a timely Response in this proceeding. However, after the deadline for filing a Response had passed. Respondent did respond to the Complaint via an email to the dispute resolution provider. Respondent's email fails to attempt to justify admitting the untimely response after the filling deadline and Respondent does not attempt to substantively present any basis from which a reasonable Panelist might find Respondent to be entitled to retain the at-issue domain name pursuant to the Policy. Additionally, there is no indication that a copy of the email Response was "sent or transmitted to the Complainant in accordance with Paragraph 2(b)…" Therefore, the Panel does not accept the late Response and thus does not consider Respondent's late Response in its instant decision.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the CREDITNINJA 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 CREDITNINJA trademark.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a parking webpage that that hosts third-party links.

 

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 identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant's USPTO registration for CREDITNINJA is conclusive evidence of its rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (stating, "There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant's rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and its vested interests in a mark.").

 

Respondent's <creditninja.ai> domain name contains Complainant's entire CREDITNINJA trademark followed by the followed by the ".ai" top-level domain name. The differences between Complainant's CREDITNINJA trademark and Respondent's at-issue domain name fail to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <creditninja.ai> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CREDITNINJA trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Igor Gabrielan, FA 2072420 (Forum Jan. 8, 2024) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding the ".ai" gTLD to a mark does not differentiate the domain name from the mark it incorporates.") (finding confusingly similar to the BLOOMBERG mark).

 

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, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue 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. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and "Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.").

 

The WHOIS information for <creditninja.ai> indicates that "Registration Private Domains By Proxy, LCC" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record that supports a finding that Respondent is commonly known by <creditninja.ai>. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). 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 confusingly similar <creditninja.ai> domain name to address a parking page hosting pay-per-click links. Respondent's use of the <creditninja.ai> domain name is thus not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) ("Respondent's use of <edcorlando.xyz> also does not qualify as a bona fide offering… the <edcorlando.xyz> domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering.").

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <creditninja.ai>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, there is evidence from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.

 

Respondent is using its confusingly similar <creditninja.ai> domain name to address a parking page displaying pay-per-click links. Using the domain name in such manner is disruptive to Complainant's business, takes unfair advantage of the confusion between the at-issue domain name and Complainant's trademark, and indicates Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Vivint, Inc. v. Online Management, FA 1549084 (Forum Apr. 23, 2014) (holding that the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page that featured no content besides sponsored advertisements and links).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the CREDITNINJA mark when it registered <creditninja.ai> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's trademarks is apparent from the mark's distinctiveness and notoriety and provides additional evidence of Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the <creditninja.ai> domain name. 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).

 

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 <creditninja.ai> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: March 26, 2025