Quicken Loans Inc. v. UDRP Account / P.D.R Solutions FZC
Claim Number: FA1701001712213
Complainant is Quicken Loans Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Georges Nahitchevansky of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, United States. Respondent is UDRP Account / P.D.R Solutions FZC (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <quicken-loans.online> and <quickenloans.website>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 12, 2017; the Forum received payment on January 12, 2017.
On January 31, 2017, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <quicken-loans.online> and <quickenloans.website> domain names are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 6, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 27, 2017 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@quicken-loans.online, postmaster@quickenloans.website. Also on February 6, 2017, 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. In e-mails to the Forum, Respondent stated that the registrations of the disputed domain names had expired, that he had not renewed them, and that he was no longer responsible for the disputed domain names.
As the registrations of the disputed domain names had expired, Complainant proceeded pursuant to the Expired Domain Deletion Policy to reactivate the disputed domain names so that the present proceeding could take place.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 14, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it engages in the business of loan financing, consumer lending services, mortgage lending, and providing information on loans. It is a well-known provider of such services, with a particularly visible presence online under the name and mark QUICKEN LOANS. It is considered to be America’s largest online lender and second largest lender. Complainant began operating under the QUICKEN LOANS mark in 1999, and has continuously operated under the mark to date. Complainant registered the QUICKEN LOANS in the United States in 2002. The mark is very well known.
According to Complainant, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its mark as the <quicken-loans.online> only adds a hyphen and the descriptive generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.online,” while <quickenloans.website> only adds the descriptive gTLD “.website.” Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the QUICKEN LOANS mark, nor is Respondent sponsored or legitimately affiliated with Complainant in any way. Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use the mark in any domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services because the domain names directed the user to websites with generic links to third-party websites in direct competition with Complainant, presumably receiving pay-per-click fees. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent used the disputed domain names to generate revenue as click through websites, redirecting users to websites in direct competition with Complainant. Additionally, Respondent created an initial interest confusion and a likelihood to mislead users into believing that Respondent and Complainant engage in the same business. Finally, based on the use of the QUICKEN LOAN mark in connection with financial services, and the longstanding notoriety of Complainant, Respondent must have had actual knowledge of Complainant when registering the disputed domain name. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. See above regarding the E-Mail communications from Respondent.
Complainant owns the mark QUICKEN LOANS and uses it to market loan financing and related services. The mark is well-known.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 2002.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2016.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain names resolved to websites with links to third-party websites in direct competition with 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(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 names are identical, in the sense of the Policy, to Complainant’s mark as they only differ by the addition of a hyphen and the descriptive gTLD’s. Generally, panels have held that adding punctuation does not sufficiently distinguish domain names for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See ForumPirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Tabriz, FA 921798 (Apr. 12, 2007) (finding that the addition of a hyphen between terms of a registered mark did not differentiate the <p-zero.org> domain name from the P ZERO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Panels have also held that adding descriptive gTLD’s does not constitute a sufficient difference. See DD IP Holder LLC v. Phill Aspden, FA 1603215 (Forum Apr. 8, 2015) (finding that the disputed domain name <dunkin.coffee> is identical to Complainant's DUNKIN COFFEE registered mark, as gTLDs that reference goods or services offered under the registered mark may be taken into account). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has not included elements in the disputed domain names that would provide sufficient distinction from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. When a respondent fails to respond, relevant information includes the WHOIS and any other assertions by a complainant regarding the nature of its relationship with a respondent. See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark). The WHOIS information identifies “DILIP SARMA / ROZGAAR FOR YOU” as the registrant of the disputed domain names. There is no evidence Respondent has ever been legitimately known by the QUICKEN LOANS mark. Given the lack of information or argument otherwise, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).
Further, Respondent’s actions are not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names because Respondent, likely to garner pay-per-click fees, offered links to redirect users to websites in direct competition with Complainant, including “Refinance Loans”, “Home Loans”, and <consumersadvocate.org>. Prior Panels have concluded that this conduct demonstrates a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name. See Yahoo! Inc. v. Web Master, FA 127717 (Forum Nov. 27, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to operate a pay-per-click search engine, in competition with the complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s actions do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii), respectively.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for his use of Complainant’s well-known mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain names.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent used the disputed domain names to commercially benefit as click through websites, redirecting users to websites in direct competition with Complainant. Prior Panels have found this behavior to constitute bad faith. See Capital One Financial Corp. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA1504001615034 (Forum June 4, 2015) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <capitaloneonebank.com> domain name to display links to the complainant’s competitors, such as Bank of America, Visa, Chase and American Express constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent attempted to commercially benefit in bad faith by employing a pay-per-click scheme with the disputed domain name thus violating Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <quicken-loans.online> and <quickenloans.website> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: March 15, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page