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 вЂњCenterвЂќ) on 4, 2010 august. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal demands associated with the Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the вЂњPolicyвЂќ or вЂњUDRPвЂќ), the guidelines for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the вЂњRulesвЂќ), while the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the вЂњSupplemental RulesвЂќ).
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. ComplainantвЂ™s company sections include: charge cards; revolutionary and non-traditional financial obligation data recovery solutions; retail micro-loans; and vehicle financing.
ComplainantвЂ™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 вЂњsecure online application [that] provides an instant and private solution to make an application for a loan.вЂќ
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: вЂњProviding short-term payday loans; installment loans; payday advances; economic services, particularly, credit, debit and cash-advance deal services offered via electronic kiosks.вЂќ
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 вЂњ100% private and application that is secure] will get you the money you will need quickly.вЂќ This content at RespondentвЂ™s web web site largely mimics, usually verbatim, this content at ComplainantвЂ™s website that is main.
5. EventsвЂ™ Contentions
ComplainantвЂ™s salient factual contentions are established into the вЂњFactual BackgroundвЂќ 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. ComplainantвЂ™s arguments is supposed to be talked about into the вЂњDiscussion and FindingsвЂќ section below.
Respondent would not respond to ComplainantвЂ™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 RespondentвЂ™s enrollment regarding the website Name. The difference that is only the mark as well as the Domain title is the latterвЂ™s addition regarding the letters вЂњcomвЂќ at the conclusion of this Second-Level Domain, for example., right before the вЂњ.comвЂќ Top-Level Domain or вЂњextensionвЂќ. 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 вЂњpurpose cash loanвЂќ 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.