DECISION

 

loanDepot.com, LLC v. Aditya Sharma / Adityasharma Homes LLC

Claim Number: FA2602002203328

 

PARTIES

Complainant is loanDepot.com, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Nicholas B. Boroski of Rutan & Tucker LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Aditya Sharma / Adityasharma Homes LLC ("Respondent"), Pennsylvania, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <loandepot.cam> ("Disputed Domain Name"), registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that I will act independently and impartially and to the best of my knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 3, 2026; Forum received payment on February 3, 2026.

 

On February 4, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <loandepot.cam> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 February 4, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 24, 2026, 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@loandepot.cam. Also on February 4, 2026, 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 25, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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, loanDepot.com, LLC, describes itself as the U.S.'s fifth largest non-bank consumer lender, offering home mortgage, refinance, equity, and personal loan products.

 

The Complaint alleges that the Disputed Domain Name <loandepot.cam> is not currently being used and resolves to a "parking" page with an invitation for offers to purchase the domain.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1.       Complainant is the owner of the LOANDEPOT trademark (the "Mark"), including U.S. trademark registration number 3804520, registered on June 15, 2010. Complainant registered its official <loandepot.com> domain name on February 10, 1995.

2.       Complainant claims both statutory and common law trademark rights. Complainant's common law rights in the LOANDEPOT Mark are established through extensive use in commerce since at least 2009, substantial consumer recognition, and significant marketing expenditures that have created secondary meaning in the mark.

3.       Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on November 3, 2025.

4.       The Disputed Domain Name is not being actively used, but resolves to a "parking" page where it is listed "for-sale".

 

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 Disputed Domain Name <loandepot.cam> uses the entirety of the Complainant's mark, LOANDEPOT, combined with the top-level domain, ".cam". The Panel understands that ".cam" is a generic top-level domain (gTLD) intended for general use and particularly by photographers.

 

The Panel finds that the addition of the ".cam" top-level domain to the Complainant's Mark is insufficient to differentiate the domain from the Mark or defeat a test for confusing similarity. See Avaya Inc. v. Robert Bird, FA 1603045 (Forum Mar. 12, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the AVAYA mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as the added terms are descriptive of and related to Complainant's offerings, and in the cases of <avaya.help>, and <avayaphone.systems>, the added gTLD adds to the confusion.") Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in any trademark consisting of the term LOANDEPOT. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the term, or any similar names as demonstrated by the domain's lack of active use and it being advertised as a for-sale domain. Complainant has never licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its LOANDEPOT Mark or any other trademark. The Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent is merely passively holding the Disputed Domain Name under an offer for sale. Prior UDRP panels have consistently held that such passive holding, or passive use, of a domain is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial use, but rather evidence of using the mark in bad faith. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (Where the panel found inactive use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy 4(c)(i).); see also Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000); see also Ecolab USA Inc. v. Genius Ingenuity / Genius Incorporated, FA 2006413 (Forum August 24, 2022) (finding that a parked webpage containing an offer to sell the website was not a bona fide offering of goods or services.) The doctrine of passive holding, as established in Telstra Corporation, holds that where a complainant's mark has a strong reputation and a respondent fails to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use, the inactivity of the domain name itself can constitute bad faith use.

 

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name more than 15 years after Complainant first established rights in the LOANDEPOT Mark and 15 years after Complainant registered its primary domain name, making it implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant's rights at the time of registration.

 

This Panel can conceive of no legitimate or good faith reason for Respondent to register the Disputed Domain Name in good faith, as the Mark appears to refer only to Complainant's business and has no other apparent meaning. In the absence of another explanation from the defaulting Respondent, the Panel finds that it is more likely than not that Respondent targeted Complainant's registered Mark and business at the time of registration in order to disrupt Complainant's business. This motive is evidence of bad faith registration and use as contemplated by Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(i) and (ii). The Panel finds that the Complainant has met its burden of proving this third element of the Policy by a preponderance of the evidence.

 

DECISION

Having established that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <loandepot.cam> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: February 26, 2026