BlincLoans, LLC v. Keng Wisutt
Claim Number: FA2107001956842
Complainant is BlincLoans, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Christopher Nichols of McGlinchey Stafford PLLC, Louisiana, USA. Respondent is Keng Wisutt (“Respondent”), Thailand.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <blincloans.net>, registered with NameSilo, 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 July 27, 2021; the Forum received payment on July 27, 2021.
On July 27, 2021, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <blincloans.net> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 July 28, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 17, 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@blincloans.net. Also on July 28, 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 August 22, 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 provides personal loans and lines of credit. It has rights in the BLINC LOANS mark through its registration of the mark in the United States in 2019.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical to its BLINC LOANS mark as it includes the identical or nearly identical text as the mark.
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant, nor is Respondent otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s mark for any purpose. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as Respondent uses it to compete with Complainant for commercial gain.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s own competing website, for Respondent’s commercial gain. Respondent also passes off as Complainant. Finally, Respondent failed to respond to Complainant’s cease and desist letter.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark BLINC LOANS and uses it to provide personal loans.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 2019.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2021.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The resolving website offers services that compete with those of 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 disputed domain name consists of Complainant’s BLINC LOANS mark, without the space, with the addition of the “.net” gTLD. Such changes fail to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per 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 Marquette Golf Club v. Al Perkins, FA 1738263 (Forum July 27, 2017) (“When a respondent’s domain name incorporates a mark in its entirety and merely adds a generic top-level domain (gTLD), “.com”, then the Panel may find that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant, nor is Respondent otherwise authorized to use any of Complainant’s mark for any purpose. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: when a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See H-D U.S.A., LLC, v. ilyas Aslan / uok / Domain Admin ContactID 5645550 / FBS INC / Whoisprotection biz, FA 1785313 (Forum June 25, 2018) (“The publicly available WHOIS information identifies Respondent as ‘Ilyas Aslan’ and so there is no prima facie evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by either of the [<harleybot.bid> and <harleybot.com>] domain names.”). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Keng Wisutt”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to compete with Complainant for financial gain. Using a confusingly similar disputed domain name to compete with a complainant may not be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See 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.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. 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, Respondent uses the disputed domain name it to divert Internet users to Respondent’s own competing website, for Respondent’s commercial gain. Diverting Internet users to a competing website for financial gain can demonstrate bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 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 Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <blincloans.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: August 23, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page