DECISION

 

Chime Financial, Inc. v. parthasarathy sundar

Claim Number: FA2510002180802

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Chime Financial, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by AJ Schumacher of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is parthasarathy sundar ("Respondent"), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <bankingwithchime.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

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 October 3, 2025; Forum received payment on October 3, 2025.

 

On October 6, 2025, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bankingwithchime.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 October 14, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 3, 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@bankingwithchime.com. Also on October 14, 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 November 4, 2025, 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 financial technology company founded on the principle that basic banking services should be accessible, convenient, and free of charge. Since at least as early as March 2014, Complainant has used the CHIME mark, alone or in combination with other word and/or design elements. Complainant holds rights in the CHIME mark, inter alia, through its USPTO registration (e.g., Reg. No. 4,728,805, registered April 28, 2015). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CHIME mark, as it fully incorporates the mark and merely adds the generic or descriptive phrase "banking with," which directly relates to Complainant's financial technology services, along with the non-distinctive ".com" gTLD.

 

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Complainant has neither authorized nor licensed Respondent to use the CHIME mark. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent operates a website that purports to provide information about Complainant's services while simultaneously hosting misleading or false content and promoting third-party financial technology products, including those competing with Complainant.

 

(iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by purporting to provide information about Complainant's services, disseminating misleading content, and directing users to a webpage displaying advertising links to third-party offerings, including competitors. Complainant attempted to resolve this dispute amicably but without success, as Respondent continued its unauthorized use of the CHIME mark and related intellectual property. Respondent's website contains disclaimers purporting to indicate that it is for informational purposes and unaffiliated with Complainant; however, these disclaimers are inconsistent and confusing, further evidencing an intent to mislead consumers. The overall circumstances demonstrate that Respondent had both constructive and actual knowledge of Complainant's CHIME marks at the time of registration and use, thereby supporting a finding of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on March 4, 2025.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the CHIME mark, inter alia, through its USPTO registration (e.g., Reg. No. 4,728,805, registered April 28, 2015).

 

3. The disputed domain name resolves to a website purporting to provide information about how consumers can use certain CHIME products; however, some of the information presented on Respondent's website is false or misleading.

 

4. Respondent's website also hosts content and promotional material related to various third-party financial technology brands and services that directly compete with Complainant's offerings under its CHIME marks, including EARNIN, DAVE, DAILYPAY, MONEYLION, and CLEO.

 

5. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to prominently display and reproduce Complainant's CHIME marks and C logo, including their placement alongside and in close proximity to competing third-party brand logos, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion.

 

6. Respondent's website includes disclaimers stating that it is for informational purposes and unaffiliated with Complainant; however, these disclaimers are contradictory and unclear, further contributing to consumer confusion.

 

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 CHIME mark, inter alia, through its USPTO registration (e.g., Reg. No. 4,728,805, registered April 28, 2015). It is well established that a USPTO trademark registration is sufficient to demonstrate rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has submitted evidence of its registration for the CHIME mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the CHIME mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name, <bankingwithchime.com>, is confusingly similar to its CHIME mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, differing only by the addition of the generic or descriptive phrase "banking with" and the ".com" gTLD. The inclusion of such non-distinctive terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CHIME 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 Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark. Additionally, Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS data, can be used as evidence to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS information lists "parthasarathy sundar" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant contends that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name for a webpage that impersonates Complainant and displays advertising content redirecting visitors to third-party sites, including those offering services competing with Complainant's CHIME business.

 

Where a respondent employs a domain name to impersonate a complainant or to divert Internet users to related or unrelated third-party services for commercial gain derived from confusion with a complainant's mark, the Panel may conclude that the respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See TGI Friday's of Minnesota, Inc. v. Tulip Company / Tulip Trading Company, FA 1691369 (Forum Oct. 10, 2016) ("Respondent uses the domain for a parking page displaying various links that consumers are likely to associate with Complainant, but that simply redirect to additional advertisements and links that divert traffic to third-party websites not affiliated with Complainant… The Panel here finds that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.").

 

Complainant has provided evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a website purporting to provide information about how consumers can use certain CHIME products; however, the content includes false or misleading information. Respondent's website also features content and promotional materials related to various third-party financial technology brands and services that directly compete with Complainant's offerings under its CHIME marks, including EARNIN, DAVE, DAILYPAY, MONEYLION, and CLEO. By prominently displaying and reproducing Complainant's CHIME marks and C logo alongside those of competing brands, Respondent creates a misleading impression of affiliation and a likelihood of confusion among Internet users.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent presumably derives commercial gain by exploiting confusion with Complainant's well-known mark to attract Internet users and divert them to its website. Accordingly, the Panel determines that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

In light of the foregoing, the Panel concludes that Complainant has made out a prima facie case. As Respondent has failed to submit a Response or otherwise rebut Complainant's assertions, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by purporting to provide information about Complainant's services, disseminating misleading content, and directing users to a webpage displaying advertising links to third-party offerings, including competitors.

 

The Panel finds that using a disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and redirect Internet users to goods or services related or unrelated to Complainant's business may constitute evidence of bad faith disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), as well as an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

The Panel observes that the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage purporting to provide information about how consumers can use certain CHIME products. However, some of the information presented on Respondent's website is false or misleading, and the site hosts content and promotional material related to various third-party financial technology brands and services that directly compete with Complainant's offerings under its CHIME marks, including EARNIN, DAVE, DAILYPAY, MONEYLION, and CLEO. Respondent also uses the disputed domain name to prominently display and reproduce Complainant's CHIME marks and C logo, including their placement alongside and in close proximity to competing third-party brand logos, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion.

 

The Panel further notes that Respondent's website includes disclaimers purporting to indicate that it is for informational purposes and unaffiliated with Complainant. However, such disclaimers do not negate Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name, as they are contradictory and unclear, further contributing to consumer confusion.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent presumably derives commercial gain by misleading Internet users and diverting them to its website by exploiting confusion with Complainant's well-known mark. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent's conduct disrupts Complainant's business and constitutes an attempt to attract users for commercial gain, evidencing bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with both constructive and actual knowledge of Complainant and its marks. The Panel notes that while constructive notice of a complainant's mark is insufficient for a finding of bad faith, actual knowledge is sufficient and may be inferred from the totality of circumstances under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Google Inc. v. Ahmed Humood, FA 1591796 (Forum Jan. 7, 2015) ("This Panel makes that inference; Respondent has actual knowledge of Complainant's mark at the time of domain name registration based on the fame of Complainant's GOOGLE mark and Respondent's use of one of the disputed domain names to detail Internet domain name registration and maintenance services related to and in competition with Complainant.").

 

The Panel notes that, beyond its common law and registered trademark rights, Complainant, including through its predecessor, has continuously operated domain names incorporating CHIME since at least 2014. Complainant has widely promoted the CHIME brand through its major social media channels with substantial followings and through high-profile partnerships, including sponsorships and marketing collaborations with prominent athletes and organizations such as the Dallas Mavericks, Visa, the NFL, and others.

 

Given the widespread recognition of the CHIME brand and the deceptive manner in which the disputed domain name is used, the Panel infers that Respondent was aware of Complainant's rights at the time of registration and concludes that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under 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 <bankingwithchime.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: November 5, 2025