DECISION

 

Quicken Loans Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp.

Claim Number: FA1904001838124

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Quicken Loans Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David K. Caplan of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp. ("Respondent"), Bahamas.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <rocketloansonline.com>, registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp.

 

PANEL

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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 9, 2019; the Forum received payment on April 9, 2019.

 

On April 11, 2019, Internet Domain Service BS Corp confirmed by email to the Forum that the <rocketloansonline.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 April 12, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 2, 2019 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@rocketloansonline.com. Also on April 12, 2019, 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 May 3, 2019, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it is the largest mortgage lender 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 <rocketloansonline.com> in December 2016. In July 2018 and possibly earlier, the domain name was being used for a website that prominently displayed variations of Complainant's ROCKETLOAN mark and purported to offer services similar or identical to those offered by Complainant. The website also displayed a domain name owned by Complainant, <rocketloans.com>, on every page, contributing to the false impression that it was associated with Complainant. The website prompted visitors to enter personal and financial information. Complainant contacted the company that hosted the website, and the hosting service was terminated in late July 2018. The domain name is now being used for a website purporting to offer same-day loans under the names "Wire Pickup.com" and "rocketloansonline.com." Complainant states that Respondent has no license or permission to use Complainant's marks and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <rocketloansonline.com> is confusingly similar to its ROCKETLOAN mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

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.

 

DISCUSSION

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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <rocketloansonline.com> combines the plural form of Complainant's registered ROCKETLOAN trademark with the generic term "online" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Quicken Loans Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1713986 (Forum Mar. 2, 2017) (finding <rocketloansreview.com> confusingly similar to ROCKETLOAN); Quicken Loans Inc. v. Dempsey Mork / Magellan Capital, FA 1712212 (Forum Feb. 22, 2017) (finding <rocketonlineloans.com> confusingly similar to ROCKETLOAN). Accordingly, the Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Its only apparent uses have been for websites that offer or purport offer competing services and likely are part of a fraudulent phishing scheme, neither of which would give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., UBS AG v. Universal Basics / Universal Basics Services, FA 1742275 (Forum Aug. 23, 2017) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances).

 

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.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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 to promote competing services or phish for users' personal and financial information, is indicative of bad faith under the Policy. See, e.g., Komatsu America Corp. v. Komatsu Book / Space, FA 1719972 (Forum Apr. 11, 2017) (finding bad faith registration and use under similar circumstances). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <rocketloansonline.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: May 6, 2019

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page