DECISION

 

Chime Financial, Inc. v. mark sin / CSTAR CHIME

Claim Number: FA2504002149702

  

PARTIES

Complainant is Chime Financial, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by AJ Schumacher of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is mark sin / CSTAR CHIME ("Respondent"), Kansas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <chimebankapp.com>, registered with MAT BAO CORPORATION.

 

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 April 9, 2025; Forum received payment on April 9, 2025.

 

On April 11, 2025, MAT BAO CORPORATION confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <chimebankapp.com> domain name is registered with MAT BAO CORPORATION and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. MAT BAO CORPORATION has verified that Respondent is bound by the MAT BAO CORPORATION 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 April 17, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 7, 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@chimebankapp.com. Also on April 17, 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 May 8, 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 is a financial technology company founded on the simple idea that basic banking services should be helpful, easy, and free. Since its founding in 2012, Complainant has been partnering with national banks to design member-first financial solutions that provide better and lower-cost options for everyday people, all of which are accessible and manageable via Complainant's mobile CHIME app. Today, Chime has many millions of members who utilize its various financial solutions every day, with a valuation for the business in the billions of dollars.

 

Respondent uses (or has used) the at-issue domain name to address a website impersonating Complainant and its CHIME marks and brand, and in doing so, hosting content infringing Complainant's various intellectual property rights, such as its trademark rights in the CHIME marks, and mimicking Complainant's official website, including displaying a "log-in" prompt that requests phone numbers, email addresses, and passwords that is identical or highly similar to the "log-in" page used on Complainant's official website.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant's common law rights and trademark registrations for its CHIME marks establish Complainant's rights to the marks, including because "the registration of a mark with a legitimate governmental authority is sufficient under the Policy to allow a rebuttable presumption of rights in the mark." The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CHIME marks because the domain name prominently starts with and features the identical CHIME mark in combination with the terms "bank" and "app," which relate to Complainant and its business, and the domain extension ".com" (i.e., <chimebankapp.com>). These additions are inadequate to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's CHIME marks.

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name notwithstanding that part of the WHOIS information may in some way match Complainant's mark. Complainant has not authorized Respondent, or any associated person or entity, to use or register the CHIME marks in any manner, nor is Respondent, or any other associated person or entity, a current or former licensee of Complainant and its CHIME marks. Respondent's domain name addresses a website impersonating Complainant and it trademark. The website mimics Complainant's official website and includes a "log-in" prompt much like the one used by Complainant. The prompt requests personal private information from the webpage visitor and is used by Respondent to facilitate a phishing scheme to collect such information. Further, to the extent that Respondent does not respond to Complainant's complaint the Panel may presume that Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate in the at-issue domain name.

 

Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent "intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users" to the <chimebankapp.com> domain name "by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of" the domain name, the website, and/or Respondent's activities. The domain name also resolves to a webpage impersonating Complainant and its CHIME marks and brand, and in doing so, utilizes content infringing Complainant's various intellectual property rights and mimicking Complainant's official website, including displaying a "log-in" prompt that requests phone numbers, email addresses, and passwords that is identical or highly similar to the "log-in" page used on Complainant's official website. The <chimebankapp.com>  domain name is presumably used in this manner as part of a fraudulent and nefarious scheme to phish for and collect sensitive personal and financial information from visitors to Respondent's website. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar <chimebankapp.com> domain name in this manner is a blatant and calculated attempt to pass itself off as Complainant, or as affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant, is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace, disrupts Complainant's business, and unquestionably indicates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii), (iv). Next, the registration details for <chimebankapp.com> appear to include fabricated information as it lists a contrived physical address for the registrant and there is no search results regarding "Mark Sin" or "CSTAR CHIME" thereby indicating bad faith. There is a legal presumption of bad faith when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant's trademarks, actually or constructively. Respondent had constructive knowledge of Complainant's marks in light of their U.S. registrations. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's trademarks when it registered the at-issue domain name given Complainant's marks were well-known and since the domain name address a webpage that impersonate Complainant and displays its trademarks.  

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the CHIME trademark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in CHIME.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that mimics Complainant's genuine website so that Respondent may pass itself off as Complainant and execute a phishing scheme to deceptively collect confidential personal information.

 

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.

 

Any of Complainant's national registrations for CHIME is sufficient to established Complainant's rights in such mark under Policy 4(a)(i). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Muhammad Shahzad, FA 1787738 (Forum June 19, 2018) ("Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is sufficient to demonstrate rights to a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also, Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) ("Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world."); see also, Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, "Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.").

 

The at-issue domain name contains Complainant's CHIME trademark followed by the suggestive terms "bank" and "app," with all followed by the ".com" top-level domain name. The differences between the <chimebankapp.com> domain name and Complainant's CHIME trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <chimebankapp.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CHIME mark. 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.").

 

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 legitimate 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 <chimebankapp.com> indicates that "mark sin / CSTAR CHIME" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record that tends to prove that Respondent is otherwise known by the <chimebankapp.com> domain name. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Chime Financial, Inc. v. Chime iBanking, FA 2118679 (Forum Oct. 25, 2024) (finding that respondent was not known by the domain <ibank-chime.com> despite the WHOIS information listing registrant as "Chime iBanking" and "Chime Internet Banking").

 

Respondent uses the confusingly similar <chimebankapp.com> domain name to address a website that mimics Complainant's genuine website. Respondent's copycat website includes a "log-in" prompt similar to the one on Complainant's website that allows site visitors to provide confidential personal and financial information under the guise of "logging-in" to Complainant's website. The log-in function acts to enable a phishing scheme intent on deceptively collecting confidential personal information. Respondent's use of <chimebankapp.com> in this manner is neither 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 Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant's mark and various photographs related to the complainant's business); see also Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). 

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith under the Policy.

 

Respondent uses its confusingly similar domain name and referenced website so that Respondent might pass itself off as Complainant and deceive internet users into falsely believing that the <chimebankapp.com> domain name is sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant. The website includes a log-in function where site visitors enter confidential personal and financial data incorrectly believing they are logging-in to Complainant's website. Respondent thereby defrauds third parties into giving up such data to Respondent under the pretense that they are dealing with Complainant. Notably, Respondent's phishing scheme demonstrates Respondent's bad faith under the Policy. See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) ("[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in CHIME when it registered <chimebankapp.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's CHIME trademark is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's mark, from Respondent's incorporation of the suggestive terms "bank" and "app" into its domain name, and from Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name to address a mimicked version of Complainant's genuine website. Respondent's registration and use of <chimebankapp.com> with knowledge of Complainant's rights in CHIME further shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024) ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, 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, 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 <chimebankapp.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: May 9, 2025