loanDepot.com, LLC v. yasmin navarro
Claim Number: FA2106001952790
Complainant is loanDepot.com, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Hani Sayed of Rutan & Tucker LLP, California, USA. Respondent is yasmin navarro (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <loans-depot.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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 25, 2021; the Forum received payment on June 25, 2021.
On June 28, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <loans-depot.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 June 29, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 19, 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@loans-depot.com. Also on June 29, 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. Respondent did however send emails to the Forum, see below.
On July 26, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it is a nonbank consumer lender offering home mortgage, refinance, equity, and personal loan products. Complainant is a giant in the world of non-bank consumer lending for home mortgages, refinance, equity, and personal loan products. Nationally, it is one of the top 5 largest lenders by volume, after Wells Fargo, Quicken Loans, Bank of America, and JP Morgan Chase. Complainant acquires more than 500,000 potential borrowers every month, with 1,700 licensed loan officers holding more than 10,000 licenses to serve borrowers in all 50 states. Complainant funded more than $275 billion in mortgage loans since its founding and currently ranks as the second largest retail nonbank lender and one of the leading retail mortgage lenders in the United States. Complainant has rights in the LOANDEPOT mark based on its registration of the mark in the United States in 2010.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its LOANDEPOT mark as it consists of a misspelling of the mark (a letter “s” is added), merely adding a hyphen, and the “.com” generic top level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its LOANDEPOT mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert users to its own website where it passes off as Complainant and uses offers competing loan services. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and gather users’ contact information by offering competing services. Additionally, the disputed domain name constitutes typosquatting. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. In its emails to the Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part: “This website was bought at a godaddy service and was available. It is for sale at this very moment.” And: “If the domain was on sale at go daddy and godaddy offer to sell it for me it is not in bad faith but business as usual. I invested time and effort to create a website and start a marketing campaign and I believe that nobody has the right to tell me how much my time, effort and now aggravation is worth. The name was not properly protected and that is not what I should be responsible for.” And: “All these requirements are taking a lot of my time. Who will compensate for my time? I have to learn all the process of the domain dispute plus understand what to do next and it is taking a lot of my time. I don't understand why I cannot buy a domain from godaddy if it is available? And why can't I sell it if I bought it.”
C. Additional Submissions
In its Additional Submission, Complainant provides email exchanges with Respondent in which Respondent offers to sell the disputed domain name for US $ 500,000.00. It also provides evidence showing that the resolving website still offers loan services that compete with those of Complainant. And it provides evidence that the disputed domain name was offered for sale publicly for US $ 500,000.00.
Complainant owns the mark LOANDEPOT and uses it to offer loan services.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to at least 2010.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2021.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers competing loan services. Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name, both generally and specifically to Complainant, at a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs.
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 disputed domain name consists of a misspelling of Complainant’s mark (the letter “s” is added), merely adding a hyphen, and the “.com” gTLD. The addition of the letter “s,” a hyphen, and a gTLD does not negate any confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Jelly Belly Candy Company v. Aaron Peavy, FA1082271 (Forum Nov. 9, 2007) (transferring <sportsbeans.com> to the owner of the mark SPORT BEANS and finding “Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name differ only in that a letter “S” has been added to the “SPORT” word, and that the space between “SPORTS” and “BEANS” is missing in the domain name. These minor differences are inapt to distinguish the domain name from the mark.”); see also Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. XINXIU ZENG / haimin liang, FA 1736365 (Forum July 19, 2017) (finding that the addition of punctuation—specifically, a hyphen—did not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from complainant’s registered mark); see also Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”). Thus, Panel finds that the <loans-depot.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOANDEPOT mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its LOANDEPOT mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: when no response is submitted, WHOIS information can be used to show that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record lists “yasmin navarro” as the registrant. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers competing loan services. Using a disputed domain name to offer competing services does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See LendingTree, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1512001654032 (Forum Feb. 4, 2016) (holding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to hold itself out to the public as a competing loan service did not give rise to any legitimate interest in the domain name); see also Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Dan Stanley Saturne, FA 1785085 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use” where “Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name to offer for sale competing services.”). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark, merely stating that, since it was available, Respondent was entitled to buy it and to sell it for whatever price it saw fit. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website offers competing services. This can be evidence of bad faith disruption of a complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, FA1762308 (Forum Jan. 9, 2018) (Finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer competing loan services disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Forum July 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent took advantage of the confusing similarity between the <theotheraol.com> and <theotheraol.net> domain names and the complainant’s AOL mark, which indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also CAN Financial Corporation v. William Thomson / CNA Insurance, FA1401001541484 (Forum Feb. 28, 2014) (finding that the respondent had engaged in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), by using a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its own website where it sold competing insurance services). Therefore, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Further, Respondent offered the disputed domain name for sale for a price in excess of out of pocket costs, both generally, and specifically to Complainant. Contrary to what Respondent alleges, it is not free to sell the disputed domain name at any price. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i), an offer to sell a disputed domain name generally or a specific offer to a complainant, at a cost in excess of registration costs, indicates bad faith registration and use. See Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Kenechukwu Okoli, FA 1821759 (Forum Jan. 13, 2019) (“The domain name’s website listed the domain name for sale for $9,150. Respondent also contacted Complainant directly to offer the domain name for sale. Doing so suggests bad faith registration and use of the <lufthansamiles.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”). Therefore, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
Finally, the disputed domain name constitutes typosquatting. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), the purposeful misspelling of a mark in a disputed domain name constitutes typosquatting which is itself evidence of bad faith. See Homer TLC, Inc. v. Artem Ponomarev, FA1506001623825 (Forum July 20, 2015) (“Finally, under this head of the Policy, it is evident that the <homededpot.com> domain name is an instance of typosquatting, which is the deliberate misspelling of the mark of another in a domain name, done to take advantage of common typing errors made by Internet users in entering into a web browser the name of an enterprise with which they would like to do business online. Typosquatting is independent evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of a domain name.”). As such, the Panel finds bad faith typosquatting 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 <loans-depot.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: July 26, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page