Cash-till-payday.com

The timeline behind cash-till-payday.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.

DECISION Dollar Financial Group, Inc. v. Cash Advance Till Payday Claim Number: FA0305000156801 PARTIES Complainant is Dollar Financial Group, Inc., Berwyn, PA, USA (“Complainant”) represented by Hilary B. Miller. Respondent is Cash Advance Till Payday, Toronto, ON, CANADA (“Respondent”). REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <cash-till-payday.com> registered with Tucows, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on May 7, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 8, 2003. On May 7, 2003, Tucows, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <cash-till-payday.com> is registered with Tucows, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On May 9, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of May 29, 2003 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@cash-till-payday.com by e-mail. Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On June 4, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <cash-till-payday.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CASH ’TIL PAYDAY mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <cash-till-payday.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <cash-till-payday.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the CASH ’TIL PAYDAY mark (Reg. No. 1,9897,764 registered on July 16, 1996) in relation to short-term, small, consumer loans. Complainant’s mark is displayed at over 400 retail locations nationwide in the U.S. and in the United Kingdom. Complainant’s mark is also displayed at various websites operated by Complainant and its subsidiaries. Respondent registered the <cash-till-payday.com> domain name on January 14, 2003. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to provide services similar to those provided by Complainant. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has established its rights in the CASH ’TIL PAYDAY mark through registration with the USPTO and continuous use in commerce since 1995. Respondent’s <cash-till-payday.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire mark and merely adds two hyphens and an extra letter “l” to the word “til.” Neither the addition of the hyphens nor the addition of the letter “l” sufficiently differentiate the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Columbia Sportswear Co. v. Keeler, D2000-0206 (WIPO May 16, 2000) (finding “[t]he use of hyphens ‘columbia-sports-wear-company’ in one of the Respondent's domain names in issue is insufficient to render it different to the trade mark COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR COMPANY”); see also Dollar Fin. Group, Inc. v. Advanced Legal Sys., Inc., FA 95102 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 14, 2000) (finding that the domain name <loan-mart.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a Respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks); see also America Online, Inc. v. Tencent Comm. Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding that <oicq.net> and <oicq.com> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, ICQ). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent has not responded to the claims alleged in the Complaint. Thus, the Panel presumes that all of Complainant’s reasonable allegations and inferences are true. See Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertion in this regard”); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that Complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence). Moreover, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances that could demonstrate its rights to and legitimate interests in the <cash-till-payday.com> domain name. Once Complainant has asserted a prima facie case against Respondent, the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to show that it has rights to and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because the Respondent never submitted a response or provided the Panel with evidence to suggest otherwise); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a Response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name). Respondent is using the <cash-till-payday.com> domain name to market short-term consumer loans in direct competition with the services provided by Complainant. The use of a domain name confusingly similar to another’s mark to offer services in competition with the holder of said mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that “[I]t would be unconscionable to find a bona fide offering of services in a respondent’s operation of web-site using a domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and for the same business”); see also Ticketmaster Corp. v. DiscoverNet, Inc., D2001-0252 (WIPO Apr. 9, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent generated commercial gain by intentionally and misleadingly diverting users away from Complainant's site to a competing website). Complainant asserts, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, that Respondent has never been commonly known by either CASH TILL PAYDAY or <cash-till-payday.com>. Thus, the Panel may infer that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (Interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail"); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain name to compete directly with Complainant. Respondent’s registration and use of the <cash-till-payday.com> domain name indicates that Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use with regard to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Carroll, FA 97035 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 14, 2001) (finding bad faith where Respondent used the domain name, for commercial gain, to intentionally attract users to a direct competitor of Complainant); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent directed Internet users seeking Complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain). Furthermore, Respondent’s registration of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, a mark widely known in the parties’ trade, suggests that Respondent registered the <cash-till-payday.com> domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor, which evidences registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding that the minor degree of variation from the Complainant's marks suggests that Respondent, Complainant’s competitor, registered the names primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant's business); see also S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with Complainant’s business). The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <cash-till-payday.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist Dated: June 16, 2003 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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