WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL CHOICE
CompuCredit Holdings Corporation, CompuCredit Intellectual Property Holdings Corp. II v. Cyberwire, LLC.
1. The Events
Complainant is CompuCredit Holdings Corporation, CompuCredit Intellectual Property Holdings Corp. II of Atlanta, Georgia, usa, represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M title loans online Tennessee. Isenberg, legal professional, LLC, united states.
Respondent is Cyberwire, LLC. of Gulf Breeze, Florida, united states.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name that is disputed
3. Procedural History
The Complaint had been filed utilizing the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 4, 2010. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal needs regarding the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the principles for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), plus the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
Relative to the principles, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the middle formally notified Respondent for the Complaint, therefore the procedures commenced on August 10, 2010. Prior to the principles, paragraph 5(a), the deadline for reaction ended up being August 30, 2010. Respondent would not submit any reaction. Appropriately, the Center notified Respondent of its standard on 31, 2010 august.
The middle appointed Robert A. Badgley as the single panelist in this matter on September 6, 2010. The Panel discovers it was precisely constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of recognition and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as needed because of the middle to make certain conformity aided by the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
The following facts are alleged within the problem, supported by annexes within the record, and unrebutted by Respondent.
Complainant defines it self as a provider of monetary solutions to customers that are underserved by conventional institutions that are financial. Complainant’s company sections consist of: charge cards; innovative and debt that is non-traditional solutions; retail micro-loans; and car financing.
Complainant’s subsidiary may be the registrant associated with website name
, that has been developed on August 30, 2005. Complainant uses this domain title relating to a site which provides customers a “secure online application [that] provides an instant and private option to submit an application for that loan.”
Complainant holds two subscribed trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark workplace for the mark PURPOSE CASH LOAN. Both marks suggest a very first used in business of March 19, 2009, as well as the markings had been registered on July 7, 2009 and July 21, 2009, correspondingly. The services provided under these markings are the following: “Providing short-term payday loans; installment loans; pay day loans; economic solutions, particularly, credit, debit and cash-advance deal services offered via electronic kiosks.”
Respondent registered the website name on June 29, 2009. Respondent is making use of the Domain title associated with an online site that purports to offer clients a “100% private and safe application [that] will get you the bucks you will need quickly.” This content at Respondent’s web web site largely mimics, usually verbatim, the information at Complainant’s primary web site.
5. Events’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant’s salient factual contentions are established within the Background” section that is“Factual above. Complainant claims that Respondent registered the Domain title that is identical or confusingly just like a trademark by which Complainant has legal rights, that Respondent lacks liberties or genuine fascination with the website Name, and that Respondent registered and it is utilising the Domain title in bad faith. Complainant’s arguments will likely to be talked about into the “Discussion and Findings” section below.
B. Respondent
Respondent would not respond to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) associated with the Policy lists the 3 elements which Complainant must satisfy:
(i) the website name is identical or confusingly much like a trademark or service mark by which Complainant has legal rights; and
(ii) Respondent doesn’t have liberties or legitimate passions in respect regarding the website Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name happens to be registered and it is getting used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Comparable
Complainant demonstrably has registered trademark liberties when you look at the mark PURPOSE CASH LOAN, which is undisputed that Complainant ended up being making use of the mark in business for 90 days ahead of Respondent’s enrollment associated with the website Name. The difference that is only the mark additionally the Domain Name could be the latter’s addition regarding the letters “com” at the conclusion associated with the Second-Level Domain, for example., right before the “.com” Top-Level Domain or “extension”. The Panel discovers that the simple addition among these three letters will not over come the similarity that is confusing because of the identification for the words “purpose cash loan” within the principal percentage of the Second-Level Domain. See Nutri/System IPHC, Inc. v. Larry Mims, WIPO Case No. D2008-0657 (transferring ).
Appropriately, the Panel discovers that Policy paragraph 4(a i that is)( is happy.