loanDepot.com, LLC v. Roger Quandt
Claim Number: FA2103001936861
Complainant is loanDepot.com, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Hani Sayed of Rutan & Tucker LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Roger Quandt (“Respondent”), Nevada, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <loandepotpark.com> and <loandepotstadium.com>, registered with Google 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 16, 2021; the Forum received payment on March 16, 2021.
On March 17, 2021, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <loandepotpark.com> and <loandepotstadium.com> domain names are registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google 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 March 24, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 13, 2021 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@loandepotpark.com, postmaster@loandepotstadium.com. Also on March 24, 2021, 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 April 14, 202, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant, loanDepot.com, LLC, is the fifth largest nonbank consumer lender offering home mortgage, refinance, equity, and personal loan products.
Complainant partnered with Major League Baseball (MLB) in 2021 to become “The Official Mortgage Provider of the MLB.” Complainant registered its LOANDEPOT mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
The at-issue domain names, <loandepotpark.com> and <loandepotstadium.com>, are identical or confusingly similar because they wholly incorporate the Complainant’s LOANDEPOT mark while adding the terms “stadium” or “park” the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to form a domain name.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain names because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names. Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the websites are not actively being used.
Respondent registered or uses the disputed domain names in bad faith because Respondent acted with prior knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the LOANDEPOT mark. Respondent registered the at-issue domain names to prevent Complainant from reflecting its brand in the domain names with the intent to sell the disputed domain names. Respondent also engaged in pre-emptive registration in the event Complainant obtains naming rights to a stadium in the MLB.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in the LOANDEPOT mark.
Respondent has not been authorized to use any of Complainant’s trademarks.
Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in LOANDEPOT.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name passively in anticipation of capitalizing on the increased demand for such domain names by Complainant.
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”).
The at-issue domain names are each confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s USPTO registration of its LOANDEPOT mark establishes Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
The at-issue domain names contains Complainant’s LOANDEPOT trademark, followed by either the term “park” or the term “stadium,” with all followed by the top level domain name “.com.” The differences between the <loandepotpark.com> and <loandepotstadium.com> domain names and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish either domain name from Complainant’s trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that the <loandepotpark.com> and <loandepotstadium.com> domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOANDEPOT mark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
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). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of each at-issue domain name. 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 interests in respect of either at-issue domain name.
The WHOIS information for <loandepotpark.com> and <loandepotstadium.com> ultimately indicates that “Roger Quandt” is each domain name’s registrant. Further, there is nothing in the record before the Panel that indicates that Respondent is otherwise known by either of the at-issue domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by either at-issue domain names under 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).
Internet users first browsing to either at-issue domain name will likely expect to find content relevant to Complainant. Instead, browsing to either confusingly similar domain name returns an error message that states: “This site cannot be reached.” Respondent thus deceives internet users into believing that there is an association between Complainant’s LOANDEPOT trademark and Respondent’s at-issue domain names when there is none. Such use of the domain names is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) (“Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Moreover and as mentioned above, Respondent holds each confusingly similar domain name passively as browsing to either domain name returns an error message. Respondent’s passive holding of <loandepotpark.com> and <loandepotstadium.com> is not indicative of either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine LLC, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“both Domain Names resolve to a web site that shows the words, ‘Not Found, The requested URL / was not found on this server.’ Inactive holding of a domain name does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of each at-issue domain names.
Respondent’s <loandepotpark.com> and <loandepotstadium.com> domain names were each registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present that compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith regarding the domain names pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
Respondent holds the <loandepotpark.com> and <loandepotstadium.com> domain names passively. Respondent’s failure to actively use the at-issue domain names shows bad faith registration and use of each domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Dermtek Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sang Im / Private Registration, FA1310001522801 (Forum Nov. 19, 2013) (holding that because the respondent’s website contained no content related to the domain name and instead generated the error message “Error 400- Bad Request,” the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
Additionally, Complainant shows that it entered into an agreement with Major League Baseball to become an official sponsor in January 2021. Both domain names are suggestive of baseball as they contain the terms “park” and “stadium.” Respondent, allegedly an employee of Complainant, registered the confusingly similar domain names just after Complainant announced the agreement. Thus, Respondent shows its bad faith by its overt targeting of Complainant’s trademark to take advantage of the Respondent announcement linking Complainant’s mark to Major League Baseball, perhaps with the intent of selling the domain names. See Atlantic Automotive Corp. v. michelle popp, FA 1787763 (Forum June 26, 2018) (finding bad faith where the respondent registered the <heritagehondabelair.com> and <heritagehondaofbelair.com> domain names in anticipation of the pending acquisition and rebranding of a car dealership, holding: “The Panel is of the view that the registration of a domain name in temporal proximity to a merger or acquisition involving Complainant and its associated marks supports a finding of bad faith.”).
Finally, Respondent registered the <loandepotpark.com> and <loandepotstadium.com> domain names knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in LOANDEPOT. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark; from Respondent’s incorporation of the suggestive terms “park” and “stadium” into the domain names, and from Complainant’s assertion that the respondent is an employee of Complainant. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent intentionally registered the at-issue domain name to improperly exploit their trademark value, rather than for some benign reason. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark shows that Respondent registered and used its <loandepotpark.com> and <loandepotstadium.com> domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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 when registering the disputed domain name"); see also Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. Michael Bach, FA 1426668 (Forum Mar. 2, 2012) (“Although Complainant has not submitted evidence indicating actual knowledge by Respondent of its rights in the trademark, the Panel finds that, due to the fame of Complainant’s [VICTORIA’S SECRET] mark, Respondent had actual notice at the time of the domain name registration and therefore registered the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <loandepotpark.com> and <loandepotstadium.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: April 15, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page