Fair Isaac Corporation v. Ralph Oliver
Claim Number: FA2301002029183
Complainant is Fair Isaac Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Ted Koshiol of Fair Isaac Corporation, USA. Respondent is Ralph Oliver (“Respondent”), USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ficolaundry.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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 26, 2023; Forum received payment on January 26, 2023.
On January 27, 2023, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ficolaundry.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 January 30, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 21, 2023 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@ficolaundry.com. Also on January 30, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 24, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it offers applied analytics services. Complainant was founded in 1956 on the premise that data, used intelligently, can improve business decisions. Today, Complainant’s software and the widely used FICO® Score operationalize analytics, enabling thousands of businesses in nearly 120 countries to uncover new opportunities, make timely decisions that matter, and execute them at scale. Most leading banks and credit card issuers rely on Complainant’s solutions, as do insurers, retailers, telecommunications providers, automotive companies, public agencies, and organizations in other industries. Complainant also serves consumers through online services that enable people to access and understand their FICO® Scores, the standard measure in the U.S. of consumer credit risk, empowering them to increase financial literacy and manage their financial health. In fiscal year 2022, Complainant had revenues of $1.38 billion and employed approximately 3,400 people in offices worldwide. In November 2022, Complainant ranked fifth in Chartis’s annual RiskTech100® report of the world’s leading risk technology providers. Complainant also was awarded first place in six categories including Innovation, Artificial Intelligence Applications, Financial Crime – Enterprise Fraud and Retail Credit Analytics; with first-time wins in Innovation – Retail Finance and Innovation – AI and Decision Management Platform. In July 2022, Complainant was named the Best Technology Provider for Data Analytics at the 2022 Credit Awards by Credit Strategy. In March 2021, Complainant was named Category Leader for Enterprise Fraud Solutions in the Financial Crime Risk Management Systems: Enterprise Fraud; Market Update and Vendor Landscape, 2021 report from research firm Chartis three years in a row. In December 2020, Complainant was named a leader by Forrester Research in The Forrester Wave™: Digital Decisioning Platforms, Q4 2020 report. In September 2020, Complainant’s Loan Origination Solution was named a best in class leader for retail loan origination solutions by Aite Group. Complainant won Financial Crime Product of the Year at the Risk Technology Awards, held by Risk.net in July 2020. Complainant's FICO® Scores are the most used credit bureau scores in the world. FICO® Scores are available through the major consumer reporting agencies in the United States as well as in other countries worldwide. The goods and services offered in connection with the Complainant’s FICO mark include, but are not limited to: predictive analytics designed to detect patterns such as risk and fraud, optimization analytics used to improve the design of decision logics or “strategies,” consumer credit solutions, fraud, compliance and security management solutions, data management and transaction profiling solutions, business-to-business scoring solutions and services, customer management software, consulting tools, marketing applications, originations applications, collections and recovery applications, communications applications, and professional services associated with all these. Complainant’s sales of products and services in connection with its FICO mark since it became the company’s house mark and trade name in 2009 exceed $11,000,000,000 globally and $7,300,000,000 in the U.S. Complainant has rights in the FICO mark through its registration of the mark in the United States in 1999. The mark is well known.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to its FICO mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term “laundry” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the FICO mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage that offers competing financial services, including ways to improve a credit score, including credit consultation, credit analysis, and credit recommendations.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving website offers competing services. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the FICO mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has registered trademarks for the mark FICO and uses it to offer analytics services. The mark was registered in 1999.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2022.
The resolving website offers services that compete with those of 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainants FICO mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term “laundry” and the “.com” gTLD. When a disputed domain name wholly incorporates another’s mark, additional terms and gTLDs have been found insufficient to defeat a finding of confusing similarity. See Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) (“Respondent’s <antfinancial-investorrelations.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ANT FINANCIAL mark. It incorporates the mark entirely. It adds a hyphen, the descriptive terms “investor relations,” and the “.com” gTLD, but these additions are insufficient to distinguish the Domain name from complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Thus Panel finds that the <ficolaundry.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s FICO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Ralph Oliver”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving website offers services that compete with those of Complainant, including ways to improve a credit score, including credit consultation, credit analysis, and credit recommendations. Past panels have declined to find a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name when a respondent diverts traffic to a site that offers goods or services that are in competition with those of a complainant. See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s 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 name.
Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website offers services that compete with those of Complainant. A respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to drive Internet users to a commercial site offering goods or services that compete with those of a complainant may indicate bad faith attraction for commercial gain per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA 1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”); see also OneWest Bank N.A. v. Matthew Foglia, FA 1503001611449 (Forum Apr. 26, 2015) (holding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website which competed with the complainant was evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under 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 <ficolaundry.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: February 25, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page