Cash America International, Inc. v. Godaddy Software
Claim Number: FA1111001414492
Complainant is Cash America International, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jason R. Fulmer of Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Godaddy Software (“Respondent”), represented by Godaddy Software, Arizona, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <uscashamerica.com>, 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.
David H. Bernstein as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 7, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on November 7, 2011.
On November 7, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <uscashamerica.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, Inc. 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 November 8, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 28, 2011 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@uscashamerica.com. Also on November 8, 2011, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on November 28, 2011.
On December 12, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David H. Bernstein as Panelist.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it is one of the largest providers of specialty financial services, including payday loans, check cashing services and short-term cash advances. Complainant, or a predecessor in interest, has used its CASH AMERICA marks since 1985 and is the owner of various United States federal trademark registrations.
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <uscashamerica.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark “Cash America,” as it incorporates the trademark in its entirety, adding only the term “US” and the top level domain “.com.”
According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known as Cash America, nor has Respondent used <uscashamerica.com> in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. Complainant alleges that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to obtain referral fees by redirecting potential customers to third parties that offer payday loan services or as part of a phishing scheme.
The Complaint alleges that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, as Respondent was either trying to divert Internet users to competitors’ sites or attempting to phish for personal information of customers. Additionally, Complainant alleges that its trademarks are commonly known and are being displayed prominently on Respondent’s site.
B. Respondent
The Respondent only became the registrant of the domain name after it was repossessed from a customer. The Respondent has stated that it therefore consents to immediate transfer of the domain name to the Complainant.
According to Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), “a Panel shall 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 this case, the Respondent has indicated that it does not contest the allegations in the Complaint, and that it consents to the transfer.
The Panel has the authority to issue an order transferring a disputed domain name to a complainant when a respondent consents to the transfer. See Stevland Morris aka Stevie Wonder v. Tedd Groves, FA 1404660 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21. 2011). The Panel may consider several non-exclusive factors when deciding whether to issue a simple transfer order or render a full decision on the merits. Such factors include (1) arbitral efficiency, (2) complainant’s consent to an immediate transfer order, (3) whether complainant wishes to deter cybersquatting by third parties, (4) whether the respondent is a serial cybersquatter who is trying to avoid a decision on the merits which could later be cited against the respondent in cases showing a pattern of bad faith, (5) whether the complainant has requested a full decision, and (6) whether the respondent is willing to resolve a dispute with the complainant prior to the filing of the UDRP proceeding. RE/MAX LLC v. Pat Newton Properties c/o Patrick Newton, FA1005001325776 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jul. 9, 2010).
In this case, the factors favor immediate transfer. The Respondent obtained the domain name only when it was repossessed and the Respondent has consented to its transfer. Under these circumstances, the Panel decides not to do the traditional UDRP analysis, not to make any further findings or discussion, and instead order an immediate transfer of the <uscashamerica.com> domain name. See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Redonna Noriega, FA 1107001399890 (Nat. Arb. Forum August 9, 2011) (foregoing the traditional UDRP analysis where the Respondent consented to the transfer).
The Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <uscashamerica.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David H. Bernstein, Panelist
Dated: December 19, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page