Moneytree, Inc. v. Cyberwire, LLC.
Claim Number: FA0708001059480
Complainant is Moneytree, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kathleen
T. Petrich, of GRAHAM & DUNN PC, Pier 70,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <moneytreepaydayloans.net>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
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.
Bruce E. Meyereson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On August 20, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 10, 2007 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@moneytreepaydayloans.net by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <moneytreepaydayloans.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MONEY TREE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <moneytreepaydayloans.net> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <moneytreepaydayloans.net> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Moneytree, Inc., offers retail financial services including payday lending, mortgage services, check cashing and other financial services. Complainant holds registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the MONEY TREE mark (Reg. No. 2,166,890 issued June 23, 1998; Reg. No. 2,976,195 issued July 26, 2005). Complainant utilizes the MONEY TREE mark in connection with it financial services business. Complainant has also registered the <moneytreeinc.com> domain name in order to offer information about its services to Internet users.
Respondent registered the <moneytreepaydayloans.net> domain name
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."
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
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.
The Panel finds that Complainant’s registration of the MONEY
TREE mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes its rights in the mark under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Innomed
Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat.
Arb. Forum
Respondent’s <moneytreepaydayloans.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MONEY TREE mark, as it incorporates the entire mark and simply adds the terms “payday” and “loans.” Because these terms are clearly descriptive of Complainant’s business, their addition to the disputed domain name does not negate any confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark. In addition, the inclusion of the generic top-level domain “.net” in the disputed domain name is irrelevant, as a top-level domain is a required element of all domain names. Thus, the Panel finds that the <moneytreepaydayloans.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MONEY TREE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant next alleges that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <moneytreepaydayloans.net> domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant has the initial burden of proving this allegation, and then the burden shifts to Respondent once Complainant has made a prima facie case. The Panel finds that Complainant made a prima facie showing under the Policy. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”).
Respondent’s failure to answer the Complaint allows the
Panel to presume that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson,
D2000-0009 (WIPO
Complainant asserts that
Respondent is not commonly known by the <moneytreepaydayloans.net> domain
name under Policy ¶ (c)(ii). The Panel
finds that nothing in the record suggests that Respondent is commonly known by
the disputed domain name. Respondent’s WHOIS information does not indicate that
Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Moreover, Respondent is not a licensee of
Complainant’s MONEY TREE mark and is not
otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s mark.
The Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in
the <moneytreepaydayloans.net> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent
Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The disputed domain name that Respondent registered, <moneytreepaydayloans.net>, resolves to a website featuring links to websites in direct competition with Complainant. The Panel presumes that Respondent earns click-through fees when Internet users click on these links. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). This also supports findings that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev, FA 156716 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2003) (the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to the complainant’s mark where the respondent presumably receives a referral fee for each misdirected Internet user was not a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the Policy); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and is using
the <moneytreepaydayloans.net> domain name in bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondent is using
the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to third-party websites in
direct competition with Complainant. The
Panel finds that such use constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business
and qualifies as bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See S.
Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat.
Arb. Forum
As mentioned previously, the Panel presumes that Respondent benefits commercially when Internet users click on the links featured on the website that resolves from the <moneytreepaydayloans.net> domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is attempting to attract, for financial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s MONEY TREE mark as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation with the disputed domain name. This is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”); see also Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain).
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied 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 <moneytreepaydayloans.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: September 28, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum