Quicken Loans Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp.
Claim Number: FA1701001713986
Complainant is Quicken Loans Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Kristin Garris of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp. ("Respondent"), Bahamas.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <rocketloansreview.com>, registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp.
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 January 24, 2017; the Forum received payment on January 24, 2017.
On January 26, 2017, Internet Domain Service BS Corp confirmed by email to the Forum that the <rocketloansreview.com> domain name is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Internet Domain Service BS Corp has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet Domain Service BS Corp 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 1, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 21, 2017 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@rocketloansreview.com. Also on February 1, 2017, 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 March 1, 2017, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it is the largest online lender and the second-largest lender overall in the United States, with nearly $100 billion in mortgage loan volume in 2016. Complainant has offered services under the ROCKETLOAN mark since 1998, and holds various United States trademark registrations for ROCKETLOAN and related marks.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <rocketloansreview.com> in August 2016. Complainant alleges that Respondent is a privacy registration service, and that the actual registrant of the domain name is Andy Tang, who has been the respondent in multiple proceedings under the Policy involving similar domain names used to promote loans or other financial services, and who Complainant refers to as a repetitive cybersquatter. The domain name is being used for a website that promotes loan services and largely mirrors the content of websites at other domain names registered by Andy Tang. Complainant alleges that Respondent may be using the disputed domain name in an attempt to harvest personal information from Internet users as part of a phishing or lead-generating scheme. Complainant states that Respondent has not been licensed or otherwise permitted to use Complainant's marks.
Complainant contends on these grounds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is 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 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 (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 disputed domain name <rocketloansreview.com> combines the plural form of Complainant's registered mark ROCKETLOAN with the word "review" (either an unrelated generic term or a reference to the evaluation of a loan application) and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark for purposes of the Policy. See, e.g., Opportunity Financial, LLC v. Andy Tang, D2016-1532 (WIPO Sept. 9, 2016) (finding <opploansreviews.com> confusingly similar to OPPLOANS); Prosper Funding LLC v. Domain Privacy / Brent Groot, RUSHN Pty Ltd., D2015-1746 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2015) (finding <prosperloansreview.com> confusingly similar to PROSPER); Avant Credit Corp. v. Andy Tang, D2014-2163 (WIPO Mar. 2, 2015) (finding <avantcreditreview.com> and <avantcreditreviewsinc.com> confusingly similar to AVANT CREDIT); Check Into Cash, Inc. v. Andy Tang, BH Media Inc., D2014-2057 (WIPO Jan. 15, 2015) (finding <checkintocashreviews.com> confusingly similar to CHECK INTO CASH). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and its sole apparent use has been to promote competing services. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., NSK LTD. v. Chdd Baboo, FA 1707414 (Forum Jan. 17, 2017).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, 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 name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed 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's registration of a domain name obviously intended to create confusion with Complainant, together with its use of that domain name in an attempt to sell competing services, is indicative of bad faith under the Policy. See, e.g., NSK LTD. v. Chdd Baboo, FA 1707414, supra. Furthermore, it appears from the evidence before the Panel that the domain name was registered through a privacy service in order to conceal the identity of the actual registrant, Andy Tang, who has been found to have engaged in a pattern of bad faith registrations under the Policy. See Opportunity Financial, LLC v. Andy Tang, supra ("in all four of his prior cases as in this case, Respondent has attempted to typosquat similar names to existing financial services lenders in order to trick customers into seeking loans through his organization").
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <rocketloansreview.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: March 2, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page