ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL CHOICE
CompuCredit Holdings Corporation, CompuCredit Intellectual Property Holdings Corp online title TN. II v. Cyberwire, LLC.
1. The Events
Complainant is CompuCredit Holdings Corporation, CompuCredit Intellectual Property Holdings Corp. II of Atlanta, Georgia, united states, represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, lawyer, LLC, united states.
Respondent is Cyberwire, LLC. of Gulf Breeze, Florida, usa.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name that is disputed
3. Procedural History
The Complaint ended up being filed using the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on 4, 2010 august. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal demands of this Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the guidelines for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), plus the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
Relative to the guidelines, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the guts formally notified Respondent associated with Complaint, together with procedures commenced on 10, 2010 august. According to the guidelines, paragraph 5(a), the deadline for reaction ended up being August 30, 2010. Respondent would not submit any reaction. Consequently, the Center notified Respondent of its standard on August 31, 2010.
The middle appointed Robert A. Badgley given that panelist that is sole this matter on September 6, 2010. The Panel discovers it was correctly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of recognition and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as needed by the Center to make sure conformity because of the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
The facts that are following alleged within the issue, supported by annexes within the record, and unrebutted by Respondent.
Complainant defines it self as being a provider of economic solutions to customers that are underserved by conventional finance institutions. Complainant’s company sections consist of: charge cards; revolutionary and debt that is non-traditional solutions; retail micro-loans; and automobile financing.
Complainant’s subsidiary may be the registrant associated with the website name
, that was developed on 30, 2005 august. Complainant utilizes this domain title relating to a webpage that provides customers a “secure online application [that] provides a fast and private method to make an application for that loan.”
Complainant holds two subscribed trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the mark PURPOSE CASH LOAN. Both markings suggest an use that is first business of March 19, 2009, plus the markings had been registered on July 7, 2009 and July 21, 2009, correspondingly. The services provided under these markings are the following: “Providing short-term payday loans; installment loans; payday advances; economic services, namely, credit, debit and cash-advance deal services offered via electronic kiosks.”
Respondent registered the website name on 29, 2009 june. Respondent is making use of the Domain title associated with a internet site that purports to supply clients a “100% private and application that is secure] will get you the bucks you will need quickly.” This content at Respondent’s web site largely mimics, usually verbatim, the information at Complainant’s primary site.
5. Events’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant’s salient factual contentions are established within the “Factual Background” section above. Complainant claims that Respondent registered the Domain title which can be identical or confusingly comparable to a trademark by which Complainant has liberties, that Respondent lacks liberties or genuine desire for the website Name, and that Respondent registered and it is with the Domain title in bad faith. Complainant’s arguments will soon be talked about within the “Discussion and Findings” section below.
B. Respondent
Respondent would not answer Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of this Policy lists the 3 elements which Complainant must satisfy:
(i) the website name is identical or confusingly comparable to a trademark or solution mark in which Complainant has legal rights; and
(ii) Respondent does not have any liberties or interests that are legitimate respect associated with Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name happens to be registered and is getting used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Comparable
Complainant obviously has registered trademark liberties within the mark PURPOSE CASH LOAN, and it’s also undisputed that Complainant had been utilizing the mark in business for 3 months ahead of Respondent’s enrollment regarding the Domain Name. The difference that is only the mark therefore the Domain Name may be the latter’s addition associated with the letters “com” at the conclusion of this Second-Level Domain, i.e., prior to the “.com” Top-Level Domain or “extension”. The Panel discovers that the simple addition of the three letters will not over come the confusing similarity developed by the identification for the words “purpose cash loan” within the principal percentage of the Second-Level Domain. See Nutri/System IPHC, Inc. v. Larry Mims, WIPO Case No. D2008-0657 (transferring ).
Properly, the Panel discovers that Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) is pleased.
