National Debt Relief, LLC v. nam jong Gang
Claim Number: FA2002001882794
Complainant is National Debt Relief, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Vladimir Yakovlev of National Debt Relief, LLC, United States. Respondent is nam jong Gang (“Respondent”), South Korea.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <nationaldetbrelief.com> and <nationaldebtrekief.com> registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 11, 2020; the Forum received payment on February 11, 2020.
On February 12, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <nationaldetbrelief.com> and <nationaldebtrekief.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 12, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 3, 2020 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@nationaldetbrelief.com, postmaster@nationaldebtrekief.com. Also on February 12, 2020, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 9, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant has rights in the NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF mark, registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, as they are typosquatted versions of that mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names since Respondent engages in typosquatting. There are no reasons for the use of misspelled <nationaldebtrelief.com> domain names other than typosquatting and phishing. This is a malicious practice which represents a threat to consumers and businesses.
Respondent registered and is using the domain names in bad faith to mislead Complainant’s customers. They were clearly registered to emulate Complainant’s <nationaldebtrelief.com> domain name. Respondent makes no active use of the domain names. There are no goods or services offered by the sites hosting the domain names and the redirect links on those sites are clickbait, misleading customers by directing them to either incorrect or non-existent sites. Additionally, both domain names have registered MX Records, indicating spoofing capabilities.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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”).
Complainant is the proprietor of United States service mark No. 5,394,086, registered on the USPTO Principal Register on February 6, 2018 in International Class 36 for debt counselling services and debt settlement negotiation services, with claimed first use in commerce in June 2012:
Although the words “debt relief” are disclaimed, this is of no consequence in the present proceeding.
Ignoring the absence from Respondent’s domain names of the shield design, which cannot be reproduced in a domain name, and ignoring the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), the domain names differ from the words in Complainant’s mark by the inversion of the letters “t” and “b” in the <nationaldetbrelief.com> domain name and by the replacement of the letter “l” with the letter “k” in the <nationaldebtrekief.com> domain name. These differences are insufficient to distinguish the domain names from Complainant’s mark. See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, FA 877979 (Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (finding the respondent’s <microssoft.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s MICROSOFT mark because they differ by only one letter, and “such a small alteration is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)”).
The Panel finds the domain names to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Complainant has established this element.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain names for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain names or names corresponding to the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain names, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant submits that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names because Respondent engages in typosquatting. See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Assocation v. Pham Dinh Nhut, FA1502001605819 (Forum Apr. 17, 2015) (“Respondent’s acts of typosquatting provide additional evidence that respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
Both domain names involve misspellings of Complainant’s mark. Both were registered on May 19, 2018. They resolve to websites displaying what appear to be “pay-per-click” advertising links which do not resolve to active web pages. These circumstances, coupled with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that he does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”).
Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names.
Complainant has established this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Panel notes that, in addition to its trademark, Complainant uses the domain name <nationaldebtrelief.com>. As mentioned, both domain names were registered by Respondent on the same day and both involve minimal misspellings of the expression “debt relief”. The Panel concludes that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the domain names and did so in bad faith with intent to disrupt Complainant’s business.
The Panel also accepts Complainant’s contention that Respondent’s bad faith is indicated by its use of the domain names to mislead Complainant’s customers. See PopSockets LLC v. san mao, FA 1740903 (Forum Aug. 27, 2017) (finding disruption of a complainant’s business which was not directly commercial competitive behavior was nonetheless sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered and is using the domain names in bad faith.
Complainant has established this element.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <nationaldetbrelief.com> and <nationaldebtrekief.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: March 19, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page