WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center


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 “Center”) on August 4, 2010. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal demands for the Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the principles for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and also the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

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. Complainant’s company sections consist of: bank cards; revolutionary and debt that is non-traditional solutions; retail micro-loans; and vehicle financing.

Complainant’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 “secure online application [that] provides a fast and private method to make an application for that loan.”

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: “Providing temporary payday loans; installment loans; payday advances; monetary solutions, specifically, credit, debit and cash-advance deal services offered via electronic kiosks.”

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 “100% private and application that is secure] will get you the money you’ll need quickly.” This content at Respondent’s web site largely mimics, usually verbatim, the information at Complainant’s website that is main.

5. Events’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant’s salient factual contentions are set forth into the Background” section that is“Factual 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. Complainant’s arguments will likely to be talked about within the “Discussion and Findings” section below.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to 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 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 Respondent’s enrollment for the Domain Name. The difference that is only the mark while the Domain Name could be the latter’s addition associated with the letters “com” at the conclusion regarding the Second-Level Domain, in other words., right before the “.com” Top-Level Domain or “extension”. 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 “purpose cash loan” 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *