WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

  • por

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

CompuCredit Holdings Corporation, CompuCredit Intellectual Property Holdings Corp. II v. Cyberwire, LLC.

1. The Events

Complainant is CompuCredit Holdings Corporation, CompuCredit Intellectual Property Holdings Corp. II of Atlanta, Georgia, usa, represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, legal professional, LLC, united states.

Respondent is Cyberwire, LLC. of Gulf Breeze, Florida, united states.

2. The Website Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name

3. Procedural History

The Complaint had been filed using the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on 4, 2010 august. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal demands associated with the Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the guidelines for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), while the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

Prior to the principles, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the middle formally notified Respondent associated with the Complaint, and also the procedures commenced on 10, 2010 august. Prior to the guidelines, paragraph 5(a), the deadline for reaction had been August 30, 2010. Respondent would not submit any reaction. Correctly, the Center notified Respondent of its default on 31, 2010 august.

The middle appointed Robert A. Badgley given that panelist that is sole this matter on September 6, 2010. The Panel discovers it was precisely constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as needed by the middle to make sure conformity because of the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The following facts are alleged within the grievance, supported by annexes within the record, and unrebutted by Respondent.

Complainant defines itself as being a provider of monetary solutions to customers who will be underserved by old-fashioned online payday loans florida finance institutions. Complainant’s company sections include: charge cards; revolutionary and non-traditional financial obligation data recovery solutions; retail micro-loans; and vehicle financing.

Complainant’s subsidiary may be the registrant associated with domain name

, that was produced on August 30, 2005. Complainant utilizes this domain title relating to an internet site that gives customers a “secure online application [that] provides an instant and private solution to make an application for a loan.”

Complainant holds two authorized trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the mark PURPOSE CASH LOAN. Both markings suggest a very first used in business of March 19, 2009, in addition to marks had been registered on July 7, 2009 and July 21, 2009, correspondingly. The services provided under these marks are the following: “Providing short-term payday loans; installment loans; payday advances; economic services, particularly, credit, debit and cash-advance deal services offered via electronic kiosks.”

Respondent registered the Domain title on June 29, 2009. Respondent is utilizing the website name regarding the a web page that purports to supply clients a “100% private and application that is secure] will get you the money you will need quickly.” This content at Respondent’s web web site largely mimics, usually verbatim, this content at Complainant’s website that is main.

5. Events’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant’s salient factual contentions are established into the “Factual Background” section above. Complainant claims that Respondent registered the website name that is identical or confusingly much like a trademark by which Complainant has liberties, that Respondent lacks liberties or genuine fascination with the Domain Name, and that Respondent registered and it is making use of the website name in bad faith. Complainant’s arguments is supposed to be talked about into the “Discussion and Findings” section below.

B. Respondent

Respondent would not respond to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) for the Policy lists the 3 elements which Complainant must satisfy:

(i) the Domain title is identical or confusingly comparable to a trademark or solution mark for which Complainant has legal rights; and

(ii) Respondent doesn’t have rights or interests that are legitimate respect regarding the Domain Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name happens to be registered and is getting used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Comparable

Complainant demonstrably has registered trademark legal rights into the mark PURPOSE ADVANCE LOAN, and it’s also undisputed that Complainant ended up being utilizing the mark in commerce for 90 days ahead of Respondent’s enrollment regarding the website Name. The difference that is only the mark as well as the Domain title is the latter’s addition regarding the letters “com” at the conclusion of this Second-Level Domain, for example., right before the “.com” Top-Level Domain or “extension”. The Panel finds that the simple addition of the three letters will not over come the confusing similarity produced because of the identification regarding the words “purpose cash loan” into the dominant part 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 that is)( is happy.

Deixe uma resposta

O seu endereço de e-mail não será publicado. Campos obrigatórios são marcados com *