Americanloanmart.com, Speedyloanmart.com

The timeline behind americanloanmart.com

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Dollar Financial Group, Inc. v. Aaron Tomkins Claim Number: FA0504000469068 PARTIES Complainant is Dollar Financial Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Hilary B. Miller, Esq., 112 Parsonage Road, Greenwich, CT 06830-3942. Respondent is Aaron Tomkins (“Respondent”), 3015 S. 48th St., Tempe, AZ 85282. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <americanloanmart.com> and <speedyloanmart.com>, registered with Go Daddy Software, 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 electronically on April 27, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 29, 2005. On April 28, 2005, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain names <americanloanmart.com> and <speedyloanmart.com> are registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Go Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software, 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 5, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of May 25, 2005 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@americanloanmart.com and postmaster@speedyloanmart.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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On May 31, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <americanloanmart.com> and <speedyloanmart.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOAN MART mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <americanloanmart.com> and <speedyloanmart.com> domain names. 3. Respondent registered and used the <americanloanmart.com> and <speedyloanmart.com> domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Dollar Financial Group, Inc., has originated over $700 million dollars in consumer loans, a substantial portion of which originated through Complainant’s LOAN MART stores. Complainant has registered the LOAN MART mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,192,247 issued September 29, 1998). Respondent registered the <americanloanmart.com> and <speedyloanmart.com> domain names on April 13, 2005. Respondent’s domain names do not resolve to active websites. Respondent has offered to sell the domain name registrations to Complainant for $1,000. 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 rights in the LOAN MART mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO. See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Thomas P. Culver Enters., D2001-0564 (WIPO June 18, 2001) (finding that successful trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office creates a presumption of rights in a mark). Respondent’s <americanloanmart.com> and <speedyloanmart.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOAN MART mark, as the domain names incorporate Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely add the generic or descriptive terms “american” and “speedy.” Additionally, Respondent’s domain names add the generic top-level domain “.com” and omit the space between the terms of Complainant’s mark. Such minor alterations are insufficient to overcome a finding of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. 1 Netpower, Inc., D2000-0022 (WIPO Mar. 3, 2000) (finding that four domain names that added the descriptive words “fashion” or “cosmetics” after the trademark were confusingly similar to the trademark); see also Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (finding it is a “well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis”); see also Hannover Ruckversicherungs-AG v. Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2001) (finding <hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as spaces are impermissible in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as ‘.com’ or ‘.net’ is required in domain names”). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint. Therefore, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations and assertions set forth by Complainant as true and accurate. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”); see also 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.”). Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and Respondent, in not submitting a response, has failed to rebut this assertion. Thus, the Panel may construe Respondent’s failure to respond as evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <americanloanmart.com> and <speedyloanmart.com> domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See 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); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (“Respondent's failure to respond not only results in its failure to meet its burden, but also will be viewed as evidence itself that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). Respondent is not using the confusingly similar disputed domain names for any active purpose; and, as such, cannot be considered to be using the domain names in connection with either 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 Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent failed to submit a response to the complaint and had made no use of the domain name in question); see also Chanel, Inc. v. Heyward, D2000-1802 (WIPO Feb. 23, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where “the respondent registered the domain name and did nothing with it”). Furthermore, Respondent’s apparent willingness to sell the domain name registrations for $1,000 is further evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <americanloanmart.com> and <speedyloanmart.com> domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Am. Nat’l Red Cross v. Domains, FA 143684 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 4, 2003) (“Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name is further evidenced by Respondent’s attempt to sell its domain name registration to Complainant, the rightful holder of the RED CROSS mark.”); see also J. Paul Getty Trust v. Domain 4 Sale & Co., FA 95262 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2000) (finding rights or legitimate interests do not exist when one has made no use of the websites that are located at the domain names at issue, other than to sell the domain names for profit). Moreover, nothing in the record indicates that Respondent is either commonly known by the disputed domain names or authorized to register domain names featuring Complainant’s LOAN MART mark. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the <americanloanmart.com> and <speedyloanmart.com> domain names pursuant to 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 interests where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain names, which are confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOAN MART mark, for $1,000, an amount in excess of any reasonable calculation of out-of-pocket expenses. The Panel finds that this offer is evidence that Respondent registered and used the <americanloanmart.com> and <speedyloanmart.com> domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Dynojet Research, Inc. v. Norman, AF-0316 (eResolution Sept. 26, 2000) (finding that the respondent demonstrated bad faith when he requested monetary compensation beyond out-of-pocket costs in exchange for the registered domain name); see also Banca Popolare Friuladria S.p.A. v. Zago, D2000-0793 (WIPO Sept. 3, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent offered the disputed domain name registrations for sale). Furthermore, Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the LOAN MART mark due to Complainant’s registration of the mark with the USPTO. Registration of domain names that are confusingly similar to another’s mark despite actual or constructive knowledge of the mark holder’s rights is tantamount to bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration); see also Orange Glo Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2002) (“Complainant’s OXICLEAN mark is listed on the Principal Register of the USPTO, a status that confers constructive notice on those seeking to register or use the mark or any confusingly similar variation thereof.”). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied. DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <americanloanmart.com> and <speedyloanmart.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist Dated: June 10, 2005 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

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