Discover Financial Services v. Zhichao Yang
Claim Number: FA1303001490736
Complainant is Discover Financial Services (“Complainant”), represented by Paul D. McGrady of Winston & Strawn, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Zhichao Yang (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <carddiscovery.com>, <discovercardloan.com>, <discoverceditcard.com>, <discoverfinancialpersonalloans.com>, <discoverpaydayloan.com>, <discoverperosnalloans.com>, <discoverpersanalloans.com>, <discoverpersnalloans.com>, <discoverpersoalloans.com>, <discoverpersonalloand.com>, <discoverpersonlaloans.com>, <discoverpersonnelloans.com>, <discoverstudentloand.com>, <discoverstudetnloans.com>, <discoverstudntloans.com>, <discoverstundentloans.com>, <discoversutdentloans.com>, <discoverpersonalsloans.com>, <discoversstudentloans.com>, <discoverypersonalloan.com>, <discovercardpersonalloans.com>, <discovercardstudentloans.com>, <discoverpersonallloans.com>, <discoverpersonaloan.com>, <discoverpersonalsloan.com>, <discoverpersonelloans.com>, <discoverpersonloan.com>, <discoverpersonnalloans.com>, <discoverspersonalloans.com>, <discoverypersonaloans.com>, <wwwdiscoverfinancial.com>, <discoerpersonalloans.com>, <discoerstudentloans.com>, <discovecreditcard.com>, <discoverpersonallans.com>, <discoverpersonalloads.com>, <discoverpersonalloas.com>, <discoverpersonallonas.com>, <discoverstudentlans.com>, <discoverstudentloads.com>, <discoverstudentloas.com>, <discoverstudentlonas.com>, <discovrbank.com>, <discovrstudentloans.com>, <discovrycard.com>, <mydisccovercard.com>, <wwwdiscoverloans.com>, <discovermorgage.com>, and <discovermortage.com>, registered with Godaddy.Com, Llc.
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.
James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 20, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on March 21, 2013.
On Mar 21, 2013, Godaddy.Com, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <carddiscovery.com>, <discovercardloan.com>, <discoverceditcard.com>, <discoverfinancialpersonalloans.com>, <discoverpaydayloan.com>, <discoverperosnalloans.com>, <discoverpersanalloans.com>, <discoverpersnalloans.com>, <discoverpersoalloans.com>, <discoverpersonalloand.com>, <discoverpersonlaloans.com>, <discoverpersonnelloans.com>, <discoverstudentloand.com>, <discoverstudetnloans.com>, <discoverstudntloans.com>, <discoverstundentloans.com>, <discoversutdentloans.com>, <discoverpersonalsloans.com>, <discoversstudentloans.com>, <discoverypersonalloan.com>, <discovercardpersonalloans.com>, <discovercardstudentloans.com>, <discoverpersonallloans.com>, <discoverpersonaloan.com>, <discoverpersonalsloan.com>, <discoverpersonelloans.com>, <discoverpersonloan.com>, <discoverpersonnalloans.com>, <discoverspersonalloans.com>, <discoverypersonaloans.com>, <wwwdiscoverfinancial.com>, <discoerpersonalloans.com>, <discoerstudentloans.com>, <discovecreditcard.com>, <discoverpersonallans.com>, <discoverpersonalloads.com>, <discoverpersonalloas.com>, <discoverpersonallonas.com>, <discoverstudentlans.com>, <discoverstudentloads.com>, <discoverstudentloas.com>, <discoverstudentlonas.com>, <discovrbank.com>, <discovrstudentloans.com>, <discovrycard.com>, <mydisccovercard.com>, <wwwdiscoverloans.com>, <discovermorgage.com>, and <discovermortage.com>, domain names are registered with Godaddy.Com, Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 March 22, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 11, 2013 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@carddiscovery.com, postmaster@discovercardloan.com, postmaster@discoverceditcard.com, postmaster@discoverfinancialpersonalloans.com, postmaster@discoverpaydayloan.com, postmaster@discoverperosnalloans.com, postmaster@discoverpersanalloans.com, postmaster@discoverpersnalloans.com, postmaster@discoverpersoalloans.com, postmaster@discoverpersonalloand.com, postmaster@discoverpersonlaloans.com, postmaster@discoverpersonnelloans.com, postmaster@ discoverstudentloand.com, postmaster@discoverstudetnloans.com, postmaster@discoverstudntloans.com, postmaster@
discoverstundentloans.com, postmaster@discoversutdentloans.com, postmaster@discoverpersonalsloans.com, postmaster@
discoversstudentloans.com, postmaster@discoverypersonalloan.com, postmaster@discovercardpersonalloans.com, postmaster@
discovercardstudentloans.com, postmaster@discoverpersonallloans.com, postmaster@discoverpersonaloan.com, postmaster@
discoverpersonalsloan.com, postmaster@discoverpersonelloans.com, postmaster@discoverpersonloan.com, postmaster@
discoverpersonnalloans.com, postmaster@discoverspersonalloans.com, postmaster@discoverypersonaloans.com, postmaster@
wwwdiscoverfinancial.com, postmaster@discoerpersonalloans.com, postmaster@discoerstudentloans.com, postmaster@
discovecreditcard.com, postmaster@discoverpersonallans.com, postmaster@discoverpersonalloads.com, postmaster@
discoverpersonalloas.com, postmaster@discoverpersonallonas.com, postmaster@discoverstudentlans.com, postmaster@
discoverstudentloads.com, postmaster@discoverstudentloas.com, postmaster@discoverstudentlonas.com, postmaster@
discovrbank.com, postmaster@discovrstudentloans.com, postmaster@discovrycard.com, postmaster@mydisccovercard.com, postmaster@wwwdiscoverloans.com, postmaster@discovermorgage.com, postmaster@discovermortage.com. Also on March 22, 2013, 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 18, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
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" 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 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <carddiscovery.com>, <discovercardloan.com>, <discoverceditcard.com>, <discoverfinancialpersonalloans.com>, <discoverpaydayloan.com>, <discoverperosnalloans.com>, <discoverpersanalloans.com>, <discoverpersnalloans.com>, <discoverpersoalloans.com>, <discoverpersonalloand.com>, <discoverpersonlaloans.com>, <discoverpersonnelloans.com>, <discoverstudentloand.com>, <discoverstudetnloans.com>, <discoverstudntloans.com>, <discoverstundentloans.com>, <discoversutdentloans.com>, <discoverpersonalsloans.com>, <discoversstudentloans.com>, <discoverypersonalloan.com>, <discovercardpersonalloans.com>, <discovercardstudentloans.com>, <discoverpersonallloans.com>, <discoverpersonaloan.com>, <discoverpersonalsloan.com>, <discoverpersonelloans.com>, <discoverpersonloan.com>, <discoverpersonnalloans.com>, <discoverspersonalloans.com>, <discoverypersonaloans.com>, <wwwdiscoverfinancial.com>, <discoerpersonalloans.com>, <discoerstudentloans.com>, <discovecreditcard.com>, <discoverpersonallans.com>, <discoverpersonalloads.com>, <discoverpersonalloas.com>, <discoverpersonallonas.com>, <discoverstudentlans.com>, <discoverstudentloads.com>, <discoverstudentloas.com>, <discoverstudentlonas.com>, <discovrbank.com>, <discovrstudentloans.com>, <discovrycard.com>, <mydisccovercard.com>, <wwwdiscoverloans.com>, <discovermorgage.com>, and <discovermortage.com> domain names, the domain names at issue, are confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISCOVER mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain names at issue.
3. Respondent registered and used the domain names at issue in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Discover is a leading credit card issuer and electronic payment services company with a highly recognizable brand in financial services. The company operates the DISCOVER® Card in addition to offering personal and student loans, online savings products, certificates of deposit and money market accounts through its DISCOVER® Bank subsidiary. Complainant has rights in the DISCOVER mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,743,341 registered July 29, 2003) and with China’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) (Reg. No. 1,127,797 registered November 14, 1997). Respondent registered the disputed domain names on July 10, 2012 and March 29, 2012.The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s DOSCOVER mark. Respondent’s disputed domain names contain Complainant’s DISCOVER mark in its entirety. Respondent’s domain names add the generic terms such as “credit,” “card,” “loan,” and “financial.” Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain names. Complainant has never given Respondent permission or authority to use its DISCOVER mark in any way. The majority of the disputed domain names resolve to a parked website containing links that compete with Complainant’s business. The <discoverpersanalloans.com> domain name resolves to a website featuring explicit content. The <discoerstudentloans.com> domain name resolve to a page offering free electronic products. Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s mark when it registered its confusingly similar disputed domain names. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to advertise links to related products and explicit content violates Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Respondent is using confusingly similar domain names to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s DISCOVER mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website .
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.”).
Complainant owns rights in its DISCOVER mark as evidenced by its registrations with the USPTO (Reg. No. 2,743,341 registered July 29, 2003) and SAIC (Reg. No. 1,127,797 registered November 14, 1997). This evidence of a registration for a given mark with a trademark authority is sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Digi-Key Corp. v. Bei jing ju zhong cheng dian zi ji shu you xian gong si, FA 1213758 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2008) (“The Panel finds these registrations [with the USPTO and SAIC] sufficiently establish Complainant’s rights in its DIGI-KEY mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO). The Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates, only that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction. See KCTS Television Inc. v. Get-on-the-Web Ltd., D2001-0154 (WIPO Apr. 20, 2001) (holding that it does not matter for the purpose of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) whether the complainant’s mark is registered in a country other than that of the respondent’s place of business). The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the DISCOVER mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The <carddiscovery.com>, <discovercardloan.com>, <discoverceditcard.com>, <discoverfinancialpersonalloans.com>, <discoverpaydayloan.com>, <discoverperosnalloans.com>, <discoverpersanalloans.com>, <discoverpersnalloans.com>, <discoverpersoalloans.com>, <discoverpersonalloand.com>, <discoverpersonlaloans.com>, <discoverpersonnelloans.com>, <discoverstudentloand.com>, <discoverstudetnloans.com>, <discoverstudntloans.com>, <discoverstundentloans.com>, <discoversutdentloans.com>, <discoverpersonalsloans.com>, <discoversstudentloans.com>, <discoverypersonalloan.com>, <discovercardpersonalloans.com>, <discovercardstudentloans.com>, <discoverpersonallloans.com>, <discoverpersonaloan.com>, <discoverpersonalsloan.com>, <discoverpersonelloans.com>, <discoverpersonloan.com>, <discoverpersonnalloans.com>, <discoverspersonalloans.com>, <discoverypersonaloans.com>, <wwwdiscoverfinancial.com>, <discoerpersonalloans.com>, <discoerstudentloans.com>, <discovecreditcard.com>, <discoverpersonallans.com>, <discoverpersonalloads.com>, <discoverpersonalloas.com>, <discoverpersonallonas.com>, <discoverstudentlans.com>, <discoverstudentloads.com>, <discoverstudentloas.com>, <discoverstudentlonas.com>, <discovrbank.com>, <discovrstudentloans.com>, <discovrycard.com>, <mydisccovercard.com>, <wwwdiscoverloans.com>, <discovermorgage.com>, <discovermortage.com>
disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISCOVER mark. Respondent’s disputed domain names contain Complainant’s DISCOVER mark in its entirety or a variation thereof. Some of the disputed domain names contain an extra “y” or an additional term such as “credit,” “card,” “loan,” “financial,’ ‘personalloan(s),” “paydayloan(s),” and “studentloan(s).” The additional terms are terms related to Complainant’s industry making them more likely to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain names add the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The <wwwdiscoverfinancial.com>,and <wwwdiscoverloans.com> domain names feature “www” before Complainant’s mark followed by “financial” or “loans.” The <discoerpersonalloans.com>, <discoerstudentloans.com>, <discovecreditcard.com>, <discovrbank.com>, <discovrstudentloans.com>, <discovrycard.com>, and <mydisccovercard.com> domain names contain common misspellings of Complainant’s DISCOVER mark. These variations are insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a given mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Starwood Capital Grp. Global LLC v. Resort Realty, FA 1043061 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 6, 2007) (“Furthermore, the addition of the generic top-level domain ‘.com’ does nothing to eliminate the confusing similarity, as a top-level domain is a requirement for all domain names.”); see also Myspace, Inc. v. Kang, FA 672160 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 19, 2006) (finding that the <myspce.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s MYSPACE mark and the slight difference in spelling did not reduce the confusing similarity); see also Marie Claire Album v. Blakely, D2002-1015 (WIPO Dec. 23, 2002) (holding that the letters "www" are not distinct in the "Internet world" and thus the respondent 's <wwwmarieclaire.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant's MARIE CLAIRE trademark); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that “[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word . . . nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark SONY” and thus Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISCOVER mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then 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.”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use its DISCOVER mark in any way. The WHOIS information lists “Zhichao Yang” as the Registrant of the disputed domain names. Respondent has provided no other evidence of it being commonly known by the disputed domain names. A respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name where there is no evidence on the record indicating that it is commonly known by a disputed domain name, or where a complainant has not authorized a respondent to use its given mark. See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because it is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names under Policies ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). The majority of the disputed domain names resolve to parked pages featuring links to other financial services, directly competing with Complainant’s business. Some of these links include, “Financial Planning,” “Loans,” “Credit Cards,” “Stocks,” “ Get a Loan,” “Bad Credit Cards,” “Loan Consolidation,” “Visa Credit Card Balance,” and “Loan Rates.” The <discoverpersanalloans.com> domain name resolves to a website featuring explicit content. Links featured on the website resolving from this domain name include, “Married But Dating,” “Live Sex Cams,” and “Adult Chat Line Toll Free.” The <discoerstudentloans.com> domain name resolve to a page offering free electronic products. This domain name actually resolves to a website featuring links such as, “Student Loans,” “Loan Calculator,” and “Loan Rates.” Hosting a parked page featuring links to third parties, some of which that compete with a complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See H-D Michigan Inc. v. Buell, FA 1106640 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2008) (finding that, because the “[r]espondent’s disputed domain names resolve to a website featuring a series of advertising links to various third-parties, many of whom offer products and services in direct competition with those offered under [the complainant’s] mark,” the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). Hosting a site featuring explicit material is also not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name. See Paws, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 125368 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 15, 2002) (holding that the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to an established mark to divert Internet users to an adult-oriented website “tarnishes Complainant’s mark and does not evidence noncommercial or fair use of the domain name by a respondent”). The Panel presumes that Respondent is collecting pay-per-click fees from the resolving parked websites. Based on the evidence provided, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because it is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established.
Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to websites featuring links that compete with Complainant’s business because they relate to the products or services Complainant offers. Further, featuring explicit content on a website resolving from a disputed domain name is bad faith. Using a confusingly similar domain name to redirect Internet users to third party websites featuring competing links or explicit links in order to collect pay-per-click fees, disrupts a complainant’s business and violates Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Savchenko, FA 1105728 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 12, 2007) (“Respondent currently utilizes the disputed domain name, <usaa-insurance.net>, to resolve to a website featuring links to third-party competitors of Complainant. The Panel finds such use establishes Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”) Accordingly, Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to its resolving websites for commercial gain. In this regard, Respondent is attempting to cause confusion between Complainant’s DISCOVER mark as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain names. Previous panels have found bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) when a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its websites featuring competing links to third parties. Previous panels have also found that featuring explicit content on a website resolving from a disputed domain name is bad faith. See BPI Comm’cns, Inc. v. Boogie TV LLC, FA 105755 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2002) (“Complainants are in the music and entertainment business. The links associated with <billboard.tv> and <boogie.tv> appear to be in competition for the same Internet users, which Complainants are trying to attract with the <billboard.com> web site. There is clearly a likelihood of confusion between <billboard.tv> and BILLBOARD as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or of a product or service on the web site.”) ; see also Microsoft Corp. v. Horner, D2002-0029 (WIPO Feb. 27, 2002) (holding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s mark to post adult-oriented photographs and to publicize hyperlinks to additional adult-oriented websites evidenced bad faith use and registration of the domain name). Therefore, Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
In light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant's DISCOVER mark, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the disputed domain names without actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark. However, some UDRP case precedent declines to find bad faith as a result of constructive knowledge. 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. However, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain names and finds that actual knowledge is adequate evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <carddiscovery.com>, <discovercardloan.com>, <discoverceditcard.com>, <discoverfinancialpersonalloans.com>, <discoverpaydayloan.com>, <discoverperosnalloans.com>, <discoverpersanalloans.com>, <discoverpersnalloans.com>, <discoverpersoalloans.com>, <discoverpersonalloand.com>, <discoverpersonlaloans.com>, <discoverpersonnelloans.com>, <discoverstudentloand.com>, <discoverstudetnloans.com>, <discoverstudntloans.com>, <discoverstundentloans.com>, <discoversutdentloans.com>, <discoverpersonalsloans.com>, <discoversstudentloans.com>, <discoverypersonalloan.com>, <discovercardpersonalloans.com>, <discovercardstudentloans.com>, <discoverpersonallloans.com>, <discoverpersonaloan.com>, <discoverpersonalsloan.com>, <discoverpersonelloans.com>, <discoverpersonloan.com>, <discoverpersonnalloans.com>, <discoverspersonalloans.com>, <discoverypersonaloans.com>, <wwwdiscoverfinancial.com>, <discoerpersonalloans.com>, <discoerstudentloans.com>, <discovecreditcard.com>, <discoverpersonallans.com>, <discoverpersonalloads.com>, <discoverpersonalloas.com>, <discoverpersonallonas.com>, <discoverstudentlans.com>, <discoverstudentloads.com>, <discoverstudentloas.com>, <discoverstudentlonas.com>, <discovrbank.com>, <discovrstudentloans.com>, <discovrycard.com>, <mydisccovercard.com>, <wwwdiscoverloans.com>, <discovermorgage.com>, and <discovermortage.com>, domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: April 24, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page