Fair Isaac Corporation v. Logan Whitehead / MY FLORIDA MEDICAL TRANSPORT, INC.
Claim Number: FA2204001991550
Complainant is Fair Isaac Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Ted Koshiol of Fair Isaac Corporation, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Logan Whitehead / MY FLORIDA MEDICAL TRANSPORT, INC. ("Respondent"), Texas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <ficojourney.com> and <myficojourney.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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 8, 2022; the Forum received payment on April 8, 2022.
On April 8, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <ficojourney.com> and <myficojourney.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 April 11, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 2, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@ficojourney.com, postmaster@myficojourney.com. Also on April 11, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 May 9, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 is an applied analytics company founded in 1956. Complainant's services are used by consumers, banks, credit card issuers, insurers, retailers, and others. In fiscal year 2021, Complainant had revenues of $1.32 billion and employed approximately 3,600 people in offices worldwide. Complainant uses FICO and related marks, including MYFICO, in connection with its services. Complainant has used the FICO mark since at least as early as 1995 and asserts common law rights in that mark. Complainant also owns various relevant United States trademark registrations, including registrations for both FICO and MYFICO in standard character form.
The disputed domain names <ficojourney.com> and <myficojourney.com> was registered in March 2020. The names are registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. They are being used for a website that promotes credit repair and counseling services, which Complainant states are identical or related to, and in competition with, services offered by Complainant under the FICO marks. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names, has no relationship or association with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's marks.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain names <ficojourney.com> and <myficojourney.com> are confusingly similar to its FICO and MYFICO marks; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain names <ficojourney.com> and <myficojourney.com> incorporate Complainant's registered FICO or MYFICO trademark, adding the generic term "journey" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain names and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Fair Isaac Corp. v. Pham Dinh Nhut, FA 1582274 (Forum Nov. 12, 2014) (finding <mufico.com> and <myfco.com> confusingly similar to MYFICO); Capital One Financial Corp. v. Zhichao Yang, FA 1579520 (Forum Oct. 28, 2014) (finding <capitalonejourney.com> confusingly similar to CAPITAL ONE); Fair Isaac Corp. v. Dennise Jones, FA 669849 (Forum May 9, 2006) (finding <ficomaster.com> confusingly similar to FICO); Fair Isaac Corp. v. Omni Associates Inc., FA 1212644 (Forum July 31, 2008) (finding <theficosurgeon.com> confusingly similar to FICO). The Panel considers each of the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
Each of the disputed domain names incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and they are being used for a website that offers directly competing services. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Capital One Financial Corp. v. Zhichao Yang, supra (finding lack or rights or interests in similar circumstances); Fair Isaac Corp. v. Dennise Jones, supra (same); Fair Isaac Corp. v. Omni Associates Inc., supra (same).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered a domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered domain names incorporating two of Complainant's registered trademarks and is using them for a website that offers services that compete with those offered by Complainant. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Capital One Financial Corp. v. Zhichao Yang, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Fair Isaac Corp. v. Dennise Jones, supra (same); Fair Isaac Corp. v. Omni Associates Inc., supra (same). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ficojourney.com> and <myficojourney.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: May 10, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page