ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL CHOICE
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, united states, represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, lawyer, LLC, usa.
Respondent is Cyberwire, LLC. of Gulf Breeze, Florida, usa.
2. The Website Name and Registrar
The disputed domain title
3. Procedural History
The Complaint ended up being filed utilizing the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the вЂњCenterвЂќ) on August 4, 2010. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal demands for the Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the вЂњPolicyвЂќ or вЂњUDRPвЂќ), the principles for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the вЂњRulesвЂќ), and also the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the вЂњSupplemental RulesвЂќ).
Prior to the guidelines, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the guts formally notified Respondent for the Complaint, while the procedures commenced on August 10, 2010. According to the guidelines, paragraph 5(a), the date that is due reaction was August 30, 2010. Respondent would not submit any response. Properly, the Center notified Respondent of its standard on August 31, 2010.
The middle appointed Robert A. Badgley whilst the single panelist in 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 certain conformity aided by the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
The facts that are following alleged into the issue, supported by annexes into the record, and unrebutted by Respondent.
Complainant describes it self as being a provider of monetary solutions to customers that are underserved by conventional institutions that are financial. ComplainantвЂ™s company sections consist of: bank cards; revolutionary and debt that is non-traditional solutions; retail micro-loans; and vehicle financing.
ComplainantвЂ™s subsidiary may be the registrant of this domain title
, that was produced on 30, 2005 august. Complainant utilizes this website name relating to a web site that provides customers a вЂњsecure online application [that] provides a fast and private method to make an application for that loan.вЂќ
Complainant holds two authorized trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark workplace for the mark PURPOSE CASH LOAN. Both marks indicate an use that is first business of March 19, 2009, together with markings had been registered on July 7, 2009 and July 21, 2009, correspondingly. The services provided under these marks are the following: вЂњProviding temporary payday loans; installment loans; payday advances; monetary solutions, specifically, credit, debit and cash-advance deal services offered via electronic kiosks.вЂќ
Respondent registered the website name on June 29, 2009. Respondent is utilizing the Domain title regarding the an internet site that purports to provide clients a вЂњ100% private and application that is secure] will get you the money you’ll need quickly.вЂќ This content at RespondentвЂ™s web site largely mimics, usually verbatim, the information at ComplainantвЂ™s website that is main.
5. EventsвЂ™ Contentions
ComplainantвЂ™s salient factual contentions are set forth into the BackgroundвЂќ section that isвЂњFactual above. Complainant claims that Respondent registered the Domain title that is identical or confusingly much like a trademark by which Complainant has liberties, that Respondent lacks liberties or genuine curiosity about the website Name, and that Respondent registered and it is utilising the Domain title in bad faith. ComplainantвЂ™s arguments will likely to be talked about within the вЂњDiscussion and FindingsвЂќ section below.
Respondent failed to answer ComplainantвЂ™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 by which Complainant has legal rights; and
(ii) Respondent does not have any legal rights or genuine passions in respect of this Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name happens to be registered and it is used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Comparable
Complainant demonstrably has registered trademark liberties within the mark PURPOSE ADVANCE LOAN, which is undisputed that Complainant ended up being utilising the mark in commerce for 90 days ahead of RespondentвЂ™s enrollment for the Domain Name. The difference that is only the mark while the Domain Name could be the latterвЂ™s addition associated with the letters вЂњcomвЂќ at the conclusion regarding the Second-Level Domain, in other words., right before the вЂњ.comвЂќ Top-Level Domain or вЂњextensionвЂќ. The Panel discovers that the mere addition among these three letters doesn’t over come the confusing similarity developed by the identification regarding the words вЂњpurpose cash loanвЂќ into the principal part of the Second-Level Domain. See Nutri/System IPHC, Inc. v. Larry Mims, WIPO Case No. D2008-0657 (transferring ).
Consequently, the Panel discovers that Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) is pleased.