CreditNinja Lending, LLC v. RASHAUD SPIKES / Business
Claim Number: FA2212002023510
Complainant is CreditNinja Lending, LLC (“Complainant”), USA, represented by Gregory J. Chinlund of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, Illinois. Respondent is RASHAUD SPIKES / Business (“Respondent”), USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <kreditninjallc.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.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 9, 2022; Forum received payment on December 9, 2022.
On December 12, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <kreditninjallc.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 December 16, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 5, 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@kreditninjallc.com. Also on December 16, 2022, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on January 5, 2023.
On January 6, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
i) Complainant, CreditNinja Lending, LLC, offers financial services and loans. Complainant has rights in the CREDITNINJA mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 5,846,273 registered August 27, 2019). The disputed domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates the CREDITNINJA mark in its entirety, replaces the letter “c” with the letter “k”, adds the letters “llc”, and adds the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
ii) Respondent has no legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the CREDITNINJA mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers similar services in an attempt to pass Respondent off as affiliated with Complainant.
iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to disrupt Complainant’s business and divert customers for commercial gain. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CREDITNINJA mark.
B. Respondent
i) Respondent, RASHAUD SPIKES / Business, registered the disputed domain name on December 27, 2021. The disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s CREDITNINJA mark because the domain name refers to Respondent’s own business in a different industry.
ii) Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is descriptive of Respondent’s legitimate debt counseling business.
iii) Respondent did not register or use the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business or attract users for commercial gain. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name in conjunction with Respondent’s legitimate business.
1. The disputed domain name was registered December 27, 2021.
2. Complainant has established rights in the CREDITNINJA mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 5,846,273 registered August 27, 2019).
3. Respondent’s company “Kredit Ninja” was created on January 22, 2018 via facebook.
4.Respondent’s related company Kredit Ninja LLC was incorporated in December 2021, the incorporator/organizer of which was Respondent.
5. Respondent’s related company Kredit Ninja LLC created a website by the disputed domain name for clients to sign up or call to inquire about credit restoration services.
6. Respondent’s related company Kredit Ninja LLC is listed as one of the top 3 credit services in the Bella Vista area.
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.
Complainant asserts rights in the CREDITNINJA mark based upon the registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,846,273 registered August 27, 2019). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is a valid showing of rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, FA 1819065 (Forum Dec. 28, 2018) (finding that Complainant’s registration of the BROOKS mark with the USPTO sufficiently conferred its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Since Complainant provides evidence of registration of the CREDITNINJA mark with the USPTO, the Panel may find that the Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues the disputed domain name <kreditninjallc.com> is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s CREDITNINJA mark. The addition of a gTLD and extraneous letters, as well as the replacement of a single letter, fail to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel notes that the disputed domain name contains the CREDITNINJA mark in its entirety while replacing the letter “c” with the letter “k” and adding in the letters “llc” and the “.com” gTLD. Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts it has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s CREDITNINJA mark. Complainant further argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent purports to be Complainant through its use of a fraudulent webpage that offers similar financial services.
Respondent rebuts that Kredit Ninja LLC is a locally owned and operated company serving the residents of Bella Vista and the surrounding areas. It provides credit restoration services, with most of its customers obtaining results within 45 to 60 days. Its team performs private assessments, contacts creditors and disputes any incorrect findings, and sends documentation. The company has assisted in credit score increases as large as 200 points. Respondent has been in business for more than a year. Kredit Ninja was created on January 22, 2018 via facebook. It was merely a business that did not take all the appropriate steps in becoming an established business, but was created in order to serve the public with credit restoration and counseling.
December 2021 was the first beginning of taking the proper steps in becoming a documented business by the state of Arkansas. On becoming a registered with the state of Arkansas. Kredit Ninja LLC created a website for clients to sign up or call to inquire about credit restoration services. Kredit Ninja LLC is listed as one of the top 3 credit services in the area per https://www.expertise.com/ar/bella-vista/credit-repair.
The Panel notes from the screenshot of the facebook which Respondent has provided that Respondent created the business with the name “Kredit Ninja” on January 22, 2018 (which predates the first use of Complainant’s mark) via facebook. As a result of the Panel’s conducting independent search for companies registered with the Arkansas Secretary of State, the Panel notes that Respondent “RASHAUD SPIKES” is recorded as “Incorporator/Organizer” of the company “Kredit Ninja LLC,” the status of which remains ‘Good Standing.” The Panel further notes that Kredit Ninja LLC created a website by the disputed domain name for clients to sign up or call to inquire about credit restoration services. Furthermore, Kredit Ninja LLC is listed as one of the top 3 credit services in the area per https://www.expertise.com/ar/bella-vista/credit-repair.
Given the totality of the circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent’s company Kredit Ninja LLC was commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that Respondent uses the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of services and for its legitimate business. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent has rights and legitimate interests for the disputed domain name, and thus Complainant failed to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <kreditninjallc.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist
Dated: January 7, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page