Quicken Loans Inc. v. Cimpress Schweiz GmbH
Claim Number: FA1705001730676
PARTIES
Complainant is Quicken Loans Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David K. Caplan of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, U.S.A. Respondent is Cimpress Schweiz GmbH ("Respondent"), Switzerland.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <quickenloons.com>, registered with Tucows Domains 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 E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 8, 2017; the Forum received payment on May 8, 2017.
On May 9, 2017, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <quickenloons.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 May 9, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 30, 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@quickenloons.com. Also on May 9, 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.
On May 10, 2017, an email message was received from Respondent's Vistaprint service, stating that the disputed domain name was registered on behalf of a customer, and that the customer's account has since been terminated.
Having received no formal response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 5, 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 a formal 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 mortgage lender and the second largest overall home lender in the United States. Complainant has used the trademark QUICKEN LOANS in connection with this business since 1999. The mark is the subject of a United States trademark registration owned by Intuit, Inc., Complainant's former corporate parent. Complainant is the exclusive licensee of the mark, having licensed it in perpetuity from Intuit. Complainant notes that prior UDRP panels have recognized the fame of the QUICKEN LOANS mark and Complainant's standing to assert rights in the mark.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <quickenloons.com> on January 26, 2017. Complainant states that on the same date, Respondent began using the domain name in fraudulent email messages, posing as Complainant's CEO in an attempt to deceive Complainant's employees and consumers into transferring money to Respondent under false pretenses. Complainant characterizes Respondent's conduct as typosquatting and phishing. Complainant states that there is no relationship between Complainant and Respondent giving rise to any license, permission, or other right to use Complainant's mark. Complainant notes further that Respondent has previously been found by another panel to have used a different domain name in a similar phishing scheme. See Zoetis Inc. & Zoetis Services LLC v. Cimpress Schweiz GmbH, FA 1719875 (Forum Apr. 6, 2017).
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
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.").
Complainant first must show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant's status as exclusive licensee of a registered mark is sufficient to show the requisite rights in the mark. See, e.g., Thornburg Investment Management, Inc. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1615194 (Forum May 26, 2015). The disputed domain name <quickenloons.com> differs from the QUICKEN LOANS mark only in the omission of the space, the substitution of the letter "o" for "a", and the addition of the ".com" top-level domain. These changes are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Quicken Loans, Inc. v. Diego, FA 1588957 (Forum Dec. 12, 2014) (finding <quicknloans.com> confusingly similar to QUICKEN LOANS); Staples, Inc. & Staples the Office Superstores, LLC v. Maria Stankova, FA 1578472 (Forum Oct. 16, 2014) (finding <stoples.com> confusingly similar to STAPLES). 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 is nearly identical to Complainant's mark. It was registered without Complainant's authorization, and it is being used in an apparent attempt to impersonate Complainant in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme. See, e.g., Hill-Rom Inc. v. Jyoti Bansal, FA 1724573 (Forum May 3, 2017) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests in similar circumstances); Thornburg Investment Management, Inc. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, supra (same). 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 is being 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 connection with a fraudulent scheme involving email messages attempting to defraud Complainant's employees or customers by exploiting that confusion, is indicative of bad faith under the Policy. See, e.g., Hill-Rom Inc. v. Jyoti Bansal, supra; Thornburg Investment Management, Inc. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, supra. 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 <quickenloons.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: June 7, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page