Netcreditapply.com

The timeline behind netcreditapply.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION CNU Online Holdings, LLC v. jakchai shinghapat Case No. D2026-0101 1. The Parties The Complainant is CNU Online Holdings, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, United States. The Respondent is jakchai shinghapat, Thailand. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <netcreditapply.com> is registered with eNom, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 10, 2026. On January 12, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 12, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy / The RDAP server redacted the value) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 13, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on January 15, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 20, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 9, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 11, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Fabrice Bircker as the sole panelist in this matter on February 17, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background According to uncontested elements, the Complainant is a Chicago-based financial services company operating since on or around 2012, that provides personal loans and lines of credit to online consumers. The Complainant operates under the NETCREDIT brand and is notably the owner of the following trademark registration: NETCREDIT, United States trademark registration No. 5423496, filed on September 14, 2017, registered on March 13, 2018, regularly renewed since then, and designating services of class 36 (with first use in commerce on June 7, 2012). The Complainant’s claims its official website is available through the <netcredit.com> domain name. Very little is known about the Respondent, except that he is apparently located in Thailand, based on the information disclosed by the Registrar. The disputed domain name, <netcreditapply.com>, was registered on July 30, 2025. According to uncontested evidence, at the time of filing of the Complaint, it resolved to a website that: - was titled “Netcredit”, - purported to offer “online loans and lines of credit” under “NetCredit Loan”, - requested personal data from Internet users, and - displayed the same postal address as the Complainant. At the time of the drafting of this Decision, the disputed domain name is inactive. On December 5, 2025, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent. According to the case file, it has not been replied to. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its NETCREDIT trademark, because it reproduces the latter, and the added element does not prevent it from being recognizable within the disputed domain name. Besides, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, in substance because: page 3 - the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks, - the Complainant is unaware of any basis that the Respondent may have to claim rights in the NETCREDIT designation and/or to use it , - the Complainant’s use of the NETCREDIT trademark predates the registration of the disputed domain name. Lastly , the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name has been registered and is used in bad faith, notably because: - th e registration and the use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent will clearly mislead consumers and cause confusion as to the identity of the Respondent, - the Respondent capitalizes on this confusion so that it can trade off the goodwill associated with the Complainant’s trademark, - consumers visiting the website under the disputed domain name will mistakenly believe they are transacting with the Complainant, - the website at the disputed domain name is fully functional and consumers are intentionally misled into providing their personal information to the Respondent, as a result of the Respondent’s unauthorized and wrongful use of the Complainant’s trademark. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. Based on the available record (Annex C of the Complaint), the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the NETCREDIT mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Indeed, although the addition of other terms (here, “apply”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, t he Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. Regarding the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) in the disputed domain name, it is well established that a gTLD is generally disregarded in the assessment of a domain name for the purpose of determining identity or confusingly similarity. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. page 4 Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. In the present case, the Complainant has not given its consent to the Respondent to use its NETCREDIT trademark in a domain name registration or in any other manner. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record of the case to indicate that the Respondent may be commonly known by the disputed domain name. Finally, before being deactivated, the disputed domain name resolved to a website: - suggesting sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant, if not impersonating the latter (since the website under the disputed domain name not only purported to offer exactly the same services as those provided by the Complainant under the same trademark, but also displayed the Complainant’s postal address in its contact section); and - deceitfully collecting personal data of Internet users interested in applying for financial services. In this respect, panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (such as phishing, passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name being fully aware of the Complainant’s rights, and that he intentionally used said disputed domain name likely for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s NETCREDIT trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its websites and of the products offered for sale thereon, in the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Notably: - the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s NETCREDIT trademark, the use of which predates the registration of the disputed domain name by more than 10 years, page 5 - the term “apply” within the disputed domain name is likely to lead Internet users to believe that they can “apply” for a loan from the NETCREDIT brand, - as mentioned above, the website under the disputed domain name purported to offer financial services under the NETCREDIT trademark, and at the very least suggested sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant, if not impersonated the latter (in particular, the Complainant’s actual postal address was reproduced in the contact section of the Respondent’s website), - the Respondent did not reply to the cease-and-desist letter sent by the Complainant, and while invited to defend its case, has been remaining silent in these proceedings. It necessarily results from the above findings that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name being fully aware of the Complainant’s prior trademark rights. In addition, the manner in which the disputed domain name was used was misleading and intended for commercial gain. Indeed, the personal data illegitimately collected by the Respondent has a financial value. In that regard, it is consistently held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, such as fraud or here claimed passing off, is considered as manifest evidence of bad faith (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4). The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <netcreditapply.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Fabrice Bircker/ Fabrice Bircker Sole Panelist Date: March 3, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.