Moneytree, Inc. v. Matt Sims / MoneyTreeNow
Claim Number: FA1501001602721
Complainant is Moneytree, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kathleen T. Petrich of Miller Nash LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is Matt Sims / MoneyTreeNow (“Respondent”), Alabama, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <moneytreenow.com>, registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 30, 2015; the Forum received payment on January 30, 2015.
On February 2, 2015, GODADDY.COM, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <moneytreenow.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 February 3, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 23, 2015 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@moneytreenow.com. Also on February 3, 2015, 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 February 27, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <moneytreenow.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MONEY TREE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <moneytreenow.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <moneytreenow.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns various MONEY TREE marks through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,166,890, registered June 23, 1998). Complainant offers business and consumer lending services under the MONEY TREE mark.
Respondent registered the <moneytreenow.com> domain name on March 30, 2010, and is using it to offer financial services and to pass itself off as 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(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.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant’s registration of its MONEY TREE mark with the USPTO sufficiently demonstrates Complainant’s rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a USPTO trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <moneytreenow.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MONEY TREE mark, since it contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety, adds the generic word “now,” and affixes the generic top-level domain “.com” to the domain name. Prior panels have found that simply adding a generic word to an otherwise incorporated mark does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the complainant’s registered trademark. See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term). Further, the addition of a gTLD also does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the registered mark. See 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).
Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and states that it has never authorized Respondent to use its MONEY TREE mark. The WHOIS record for the disputed domain name lists “Matt Sims” of “MoneyTreeNow” as the registrant of record. While Respondent has self-identified as operating under the “MoneyTreeNow” name, prior panels have required some affirmative evidence beyond the WHOIS information for the respondent to successfully rebut under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Yoga Works, Inc. v. Arpita, FA 155461 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not “commonly known by” the <shantiyogaworks.com> domain name despite listing its name as “Shanti Yoga Works” in its WHOIS contact information because there was “no affirmative evidence before the Panel that the respondent was ever ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name prior to its registration of the disputed domain name”). Since there is no corroborating evidence showing that Respondent is known by the <moneytreenow.com> domain name, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant asserts that Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the <moneytreenow.com> domain name is further evident by Respondent’s failure to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the <moneytreenow.com> domain name to fraudulently provide unregulated financial services to Internet consumers, passing itself off as Complainant. Passing itself off as Complainant and offering competing services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant’s mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <moneytreenow.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business by diverting Internet customers seeking Complainant’s website. This constitutes bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Surface Prot. Indus., Inc. v. Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001) (finding that, given the competitive relationship between the complainant and the respondent, the respondent likely registered the contested domain name with the intent to disrupt the complainant's business and create user confusion).
Respondent intentionally attracts, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. Complainant shows that Respondent’s site confuses consumers as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website, and argues that Respondent’s questionable activities directly reflect on Complainant and may come to be associated with the MONEY TREE mark. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s use demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
See MathForum.com, LLC v. Weiguang Huang, D2000-0743 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark and the domain name was used to host a commercial website that offered similar services offered by the complainant under its mark).
Complainant argues that Respondent had knowledge or should have had knowledge of Complainant’s business and rights to the MONEY TREE mark, as its registrations for the MONEY TREE mark existed well before the registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees and finds that, due to the fame of Complainant's mark and Respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as Complainant, Respondent had actual knowledge of the mark and Complainant's rights, which is further evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See The Way Int'l, Inc. v. Diamond Peters, D2003-0264 (WIPO May 29, 2003) ("As to constructive knowledge, the Panel takes the view that there is no place for such a concept under the Policy."); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration").
Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has 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 <moneytreenow.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: March 3, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page