URS FINAL DETERMINATION

 

Oportun, Inc. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Registration private et al.

Claim Number: FA1904001837688

 

DOMAIN NAME

<oportunloans.online>

 

PARTIES

Complainant: Oportun, Inc. of San Carlos, California, United States of America.

Complainant Representative: DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.

 

Respondent: Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America.

 

Domains By Proxy, LLC / Registration private of Scottsdale, Arizona, US.

 

iheartclicks of palm beach, United States of America.

 

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

Registries: DotOnline Inc.

Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC

 

EXAMINER

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 Examiner in this proceeding.

 

Bart Van Besien, as Examiner.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted: April 5, 2019

Commencement: April 8, 2019     

Response Date: April 8, 2019

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") .

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.

 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Clear and convincing evidence.

 

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION

 

The Complainant, Oportun, Inc., has shown that it is the owner of different trademarks OPORTUN, including United States Trademark Registration Nos. 4999048 and 4999148 (the “OPORTUN Marks”), which it uses in connection with financial services, more in particular personal loans. The Complainant provided evidence that it is the registered owner of the US word trademark OPORTUN No. 4999048, registered for financial services, namely providing personal loans and lines of credit, and debit card services.

Complainant asserts that it has granted over 2.5 million loans to 1.1 million borrowers, providing approximately $5.4 billion dollars in total credit to consumers, and that it operates over 280 retail locations in eleven U.S. states. Complainant asserts that it has been recognized as an industry leader in the field of personal loans. Complainant further asserts that, through extensive use and promotion, its OPORTUN Marks have become favorably known throughout the United States as a source identifier for a leading lender, and that its OPORTUN Marks have become highly distinctive in the minds of the public.

Complainant operates the Internet website <Oportun.com>. According to Complainant, consumers can access information about Complainant and its services, apply for loans, review the status of their loans, and make payments via this website.

These assertions are not contested by the Respondent.

The Complainant has submitted evidence that the disputed domain name resolves to a website where “Oportun loans” are offered to the public. This website uses the OPORTUN trademark to offer personal loans.

 

URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.

 

[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:

(i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or

(ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or

(iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

        

          Determined: Finding for the Complainant

 

URS 1.2.6.1 (i) covers the domain name at issue in this case. The domain name consists of Complainant’s registered word mark OPORTUN (taken in its entirety), paired with the descriptive word “loans” (which describes the services covered by the Complainant’s OPORTUN word mark) and the generic top level domain “.info”.

 

[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

 

Determined: Finding for the Complainant

 

The Complainant asserts that it has no business relationship with the Respondent. The Complainant asserts that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the OPORTUN Marks or to apply for a Domain Name incorporating the OPORTUN Marks.

The Examiner notes that the Respondent did not refute the Complainant’s claims. The Respondent did not provide evidence of legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence of any similar or identical trademarks owned by the Respondent. There is no indication of any authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark. There is no indication that the Respondent is otherwise related to the Complainant’s business. There is no evidence of the Respondent being commonly known as “OPORTUN” prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.

 

The Respondent merely stated: “we have deleted the domains and no longer own”.

 

For all of the above reasons, the Examiner determines that the Respondent does not have legitimate rights or interests to the domain name.

 

[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

Determined: Finding for the Complainant.

 

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is using the Domain Name in connection with a website for granting personal loans. The Complainant fears that the Respondent may be using the Domain Name in connection with a phishing scheme or for other fraudulent purposes. The Complainant further asserts that, by creating confusion through its registration and use of a domain name wholly comprised of the OPORTUN mark paired with the descriptive word “loans”, the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract Internet Users to Respondent’s website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the OPORTUN Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website and the loan products offered through Respondent’s website.

 

As mentioned above, the Complainant has submitted evidence that the domain name leads to a website where OPORTUN personal loans are offered for sale. On several pages of this website, the OPORTUN word trademark is used for loans and financial services. Moreover, the Complainant’s word mark is used in the domain name itself, with the addition of the “.info”-suffix and the descriptive term “loans”. 

 

The Examiner finds that the domain name falsely suggests that there is a commercial link between the Complainant and the OPORTUN loans that are offered via the disputed domain name, and therefore creates a risk of confusion and may mislead consumers as to the origin of these services. The Examiner points to the fact that the Complainant has submitted a screenshot of the website of the Respondent, which proves that the Respondent is indeed offering financial services that are competing with the Complainant’s services (or that are at least covered by the Complainant’s trademark registrations, in particular personal loans).

 

The Respondent did not refute the Complainant’s claims. In general terms, there are no circumstances known to the Examiner that refute the claims of bad faith registration or bad faith use.

 

For these reasons, the Examiner finds that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Registrant.

 

The Examiner determines that URS 1.2.6.3 (c) and (d) are applicable in this case:

·         Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; and

·         By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on­line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

 

FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD

 

The Examiner finds that the Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.

 

DETERMINATION

After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.

 

<oportunloans.online>

 

 

 

 

Bart Van Besien, Examiner

Dated:  April 09, 2019

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page