DECISION

 

The Clearing House Payments Company L.L.C. v. Gloria J. Jackson

Claim Number: FA2607002234299

 

PARTIES

Complainant is The Clearing House Payments Company L.L.C. ("Complainant"), represented by Mary Grace Gallagher of Alston & Bird, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Gloria J. Jackson ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <theclearringhouseusa.org>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.

 

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 July 22, 2026; Forum received payment on July 22, 2026.

 

On July 24, 2026, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <theclearringhouseusa.org> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 July 27, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 17, 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@theclearringhouseusa.org. Also on July 27, 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 August 18, 2026, 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, The Clearing House Payments Company L.L.C., operates U.S.-based payments networks that clear and settle more than $2 trillion each day through wire, ACH, check image, and instant payments. It is the nation's most experienced payments company, with a long track record of providing secure and reliable systems, payments innovation, and strategic thought leadership to financial institutions. In 2017, The Clearing House revolutionized U.S. payments by introducing the RTP® network, which supports the immediate clearing and settlement of payments, along with the ability to exchange related payment information across the same secure channel.

 

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted THE CLEARING HOUSE, as well marks containing the phrase THE CLEARING HOUSE or CLEARING HOUSE, trademark registrations.

 

Complainant owns the domain name <theclearinghouse.org>, which resolves to a website where Complainant promotes its business and provides information on its services to customers and allows customers to login to their accounts associated with Complainant.

 

Without the Complainant's knowledge or consent, Respondent registered the at-issue domain name on February 2, 2026. Nearly every page of the website at the at-issue domain name is virtually identical to a page on the legitimate website – including both the text and the images – and prominently features Complainant's trademarks. Pages copied multiple pages from Complainant in their entirety. The only header link Respondent added to the website at the at-issue domain name that differs from Complainant's legitimate website is an "Account Login" webform.

 

Through this page, Respondent is transparently seeking to harvest confidential information from The Clearing House users.

 

The Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to the Complainant's Marks.

Complainant owns valid statutory and common law rights in the TCH marks. Complainant acquired these rights prior to the date on which Respondent registered the at-issue domain name. Complainant's United States trademark registrations for its TCH marks are alone sufficient to establish trademark rights for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The at-issue domain name incorporates the common portion of the TCH marks in full ("Clearing House") with only the addition of a letter "r" ("Clearring House"), the geographic abbreviation for the United States of America "usa," and the addition of gTLD .org. Such amendments are not sufficient to distinguish the Domain Name from the TCH marks. It is also well-established that the addition of a gTLD is insufficient to negate confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and a mark. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them.

 

The Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name.

Respondent's registration and use of the at-issue domain name is a blatant attempt to benefit from the goodwill and fame associated with the TCH marks to deceive consumers. Respondent registered the domain name more than ten years after the first use of the THE CLEARING HOUSE mark, and well after the first use of the remaining TCH marks. Respondent has no connection or affiliation of any kind with Complainant or its services, and Complainant has never granted Respondent a license or consent, express or implied, to use the TCH marks in any manner or to register the at-issue domain name.

 

The Respondent is using the domain name as part of a phishing scam attempting to pass off Respondent's website as the official The Clearing House website to harvest confidential information from unsuspecting users including user login and password information. Such use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Respondent is similarly not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name. On the contrary, Respondent is making commercial use of the domain name by trading on a name that is confusingly similar to the TCH marks.

 

Respondent is also not commonly known by the name THE CLEARRING HOUSE USA, nor does Respondent's WHOIS record make any indication to the contrary.

 

Upon information and belief, Respondent has never used, nor even made preparation to use, the domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods and services, nor has it made a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name. Thus, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name.

 

The Domain Name Was Registered and Used in Bad Faith.

Respondent's registration and use of the domain name shows bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent is attempting to lure Internet users to its website by registering and using a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks and then using the website at the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant's actual website. Through the website at the domain name  – a mindless imitation of the official The Clearing House's website – Respondent is seemingly engaged in a phishing scam to harvest personal information from Complainant's customers who visit the website.

 

Respondent also benefits commercially from using the confusingly similar domain name to mislead consumers into believing that Complainant is associated or affiliated with, or sponsors or endorses Respondent and its website, and to trick consumers into reaching out to Respondent to purchase or use Complainant's services. Such use constitutes bad faith registration and use.

 

It is also clear from the domain name itself and the fact that the website contains content copied directly from Complainant's legitimate website that Respondent registered the domain name with full knowledge Complainant and its rights in the TCH marks. This knowledge alone constitutes bad faith and justifies transfer of the domain name to Complainant .

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in THE CLEARING HOUSE mark.

 

Complainant's rights in THE CLEARING HOUSE predate Respondent's registration of <theclearringhouseusa.org>.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant nor authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website mimicking Complainant's official website that enables Respondent to fraudulently collect private data.

 

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 3.1 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.

 

Complainant shows that it has a USPTO registration for its THE CLEARING HOUSE trademark. Such registration is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in THE CLEARING HOUSE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's <theclearringhouseusa.org> domain name includes Complainant's THE CLEARING HOUSE trademark less its domain name impermissible spaces but with an extra letter "r" added to the mark. The misspelled string is followed by the geographical term "usa" with all followed by the "org"  top-level domain name. The differences between the at-issue domain name and Complainant's THE CLEARING HOUSE trademark are insufficient to distinguish the at-issue domain name from THE CLEARING HOUSE for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <theclearringhouseusa.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's THE CLEARING HOUSE trademark. 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."); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA 2038314 (Forum July 26, 2023) ("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).")

 

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).

 

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 Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum Jun. 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark into any domain name).

 

The WHOIS information for <theclearringhouseusa.org> leads to identifying <theclearringhouseusa.org>'s registrant as "Gloria J. Jackson" and the record contains no evidence that tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <theclearringhouseusa.org> or any variation thereof. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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 at-issue domain name to address a website that mimics the Complainant's genuine website. The <theclearringhouseusa.org> website displays Complainant's THE CLEARING HOUSE trademark, logo, and website content. Respondent's use of <theclearringhouseusa.org> to pose as Complainant and misdirect internet users to Respondent's website is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant").

 

Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <theclearringhouseusa.org>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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

 

As mentioned above, Respondent uses <theclearringhouseusa.org> to address a website looking like it is the authorized website of Complainant. Respondent's use of <theclearringhouseusa.org> to pass off as Complainant is disruptive to Complainant's business and intended to attract internet users looking for Complainant to Respondent's website so that Respondent might wrongfully capitalize on the confusion it created between its <theclearringhouseusa.org> domain name and Cxand Complainant's THE CLEARING HOUSE trademark. Respondent's use of <theclearringhouseusa.org> demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."); see also, Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Domain ID Shield Service / Domain ID Shield Service CO., Limited, FA 1841700 (Forum June 21, 2019) (finding that respondent was using "chevronplacement.com" in bad faith in order to "disrupt the business of Complainant by causing internet users to think an affiliation exists between Respondent's domain names and Complainant").

 

Next, by deploying a putative "Account Login" form on the <theclearringhouseusa.org> website Respondent facilitates the collection of proprietary data including login and password information from third parties that falsely believe they are visiting Complainant's genuine website. Such deceitfully harvested information may be used by Respondent for an assortment of malicious purposes including identity theft, unauthorized account entry and various phishing scams thus further demonstrating Complainant's bad faith registration and use of the <theclearringhouseusa.org> domain name. 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 the THE CLEARING HOUSE mark when it registered <theclearringhouseusa.org> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's THE CLEARING HOUSE trademark and from Respondent's use of the domain name to address a website that by mirroring Complainant's genuine website appears as if it is an authorized website of Complainant. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in THE CLEARING HOUSE further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. 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

 

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 <theclearringhouseusa.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: August 19, 2026