Cashtillpaydayloan.info, Cashuntilpaydayloan.info, Nofaxcashtilpaydayloan.info

The timeline behind cashtillpaydayloan.info

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. Samantha Ladd and goto www.13biz.net for info Claim Number: FA0510000573172 PARTIES Complainant is Dollar Financial Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Hilary B. Miller, 112 Parsonage Road, Greenwich, CT 06830-3942. Respondent is Samantha Ladd and goto www.13biz.net for info (“Respondent”), P.O. Box 1025, Berkeley Springs, WV 25411. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <cashtillpaydayloan.info>, <cashuntilpaydayloan.info> and <nofaxcashtilpaydayloan.info>, registered with Enom, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 6, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 10, 2005. On October 11, 2005, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <cashtillpaydayloan.info>, <cashuntilpaydayloan.info> and <nofaxcashtilpaydayloan.info> domain names are registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, 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 October 12, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 1, 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@cashtillpaydayloan.info, postmaster@cashuntilpaydayloan.info and postmaster@nofaxcashtilpaydayloan.info by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On November 8, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) 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 <cashtillpaydayloan.info>, <cashuntilpaydayloan.info> and <nofaxcashtilpaydayloan.info> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CASH ‘TIL PAYDAY mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <cashtillpaydayloan.info>, <cashuntilpaydayloan.info> and <nofaxcashtilpaydayloan.info> domain names. 3. Respondent registered and used the <cashtillpaydayloan.info>, <cashuntilpaydayloan.info> and <nofaxcashtilpaydayloan.info> domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Dollar Financial Group, Inc., a New York corporation formerly known as Monetary Management Corporation, is the largest national originator of small consumer payday loans from banks and other financial institutions. Complainant holds trademark registration rights with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the CASH ‘TIL PAYDAY mark (Reg. No. 1,987,764, issued July 16, 1996). Complainant, since 1995, has spent millions of dollars advertising its consumer financial services under the CASH ‘TIL PAYDAY mark, and has originated over $900 million in consumer loans nationwide. Respondent registered the <cashtillpaydayloan.info>, <cashuntilpaydayloan.info> and <nofaxcashtilpaydayloan.info> domain names on July 14, 2005. Respondent has not made any use of the disputed domain names, and they are simply placeholders that do not contain any substantive content. Additionally, the disputed domain name registrations are presently offered for sale through an annotation on the WHOIS entry for Respondent’s website at the <greatdomainsforsale.com> domain name. 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. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also 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.”). 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 CASH ‘TIL PAYDAY mark through registration with the USPTO. See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”); see also Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”). Respondent’s <cashtillpaydayloan.info>, <cashuntilpaydayloan.info> and <nofaxcashtilpaydayloan.info> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CASH ‘TIL PAYDAY mark because the domain names incorporate Complainant’s mark and deviate from it with the addition of generic or descriptive terms, including “loan,” “until,” “no” and “fax.” The mere addition of generic or descriptive words to Complainant’s registered mark does not negate the confusing similarity of Respondent’s domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See L.L. Bean, Inc. v. ShopStarNetwork, FA 95404 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2000) (finding that combining the generic word “shop” with the complainant’s registered mark “llbean” does not circumvent the complainant’s rights in the mark nor avoid the confusing similarity aspect of the ICANN Policy); see also Christie’s Inc. v. Tiffany’s Jewelry Auction, Inc., D2001-0075 (WIPO Mar. 6, 2001) (finding that the domain name <christiesauction.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant's mark since it merely adds the word “auction” used in its generic sense). Furthermore, the addition of the generic top-level domain name “.info” does not negate the confusingly similar aspects of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) ( “[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”); see also Daedong-USA, Inc. v. O’Bryan Implement Sales, FA 210302 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 29, 2003) (“Respondent's domain name, <kioti.com>, is identical to Complainant's KIOTI mark because adding a top-level domain name is irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <cashtillpaydayloan.info>, <cashuntilpaydayloan.info> and <nofaxcashtilpaydayloan.info> domain names. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel assumes that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist). Respondent’s registered domain names are inactive and contain no content. Respondent has not made any use of the disputed domain names and they are simply placeholders that do not contain any substantive content. The Panel may find that such non use 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 Boeing Co. v. Bressi, D2000-1164 (WIPO Oct. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where “Respondent has advanced no basis on which the Panel could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names” and “no commercial use is being made of the names”); see also AT&T Corp. v. Domains by Brian Evans, D2000-0790 (WIPO Sept. 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent did not provide any documentation on the existence of its alleged company that might show what the company’s business was, or how the company’s years of existence, if it ever existed, might mesh with the complainant’s trademark claims). Moreover, Respondent has offered no evidence and there is no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the <cashtillpaydayloan.info>, <cashuntilpaydayloan.info> and <nofaxcashtilpaydayloan.info> domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest 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); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds that Respondent’s passive use of the disputed domain names constitute registration and use in bad faith. See Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda. v. Sallen, D2000-0715 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (finding that mere passive holding of a domain name can qualify as bad faith if the domain name owner’s conduct creates the impression that the name is for sale); see also Globosat Programadora Ltda v. Artmidia Comunicação Criação E Arte Ltda., D2000-0605 (WIPO Sept. 13, 2000) (“[T]he fact that almost all the domain names registered by the the respondent or the Administrative Contact for these domains are inactive and redirected to a site apparently dedicated to the commerce of domain names, force this Panelist to consider that . . . . Respondent has registered the domain names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain names registration to the Complainant or to a Complainant's competitor for valuable consideration.”). Respondent’s registration of the domain names incorporating Complainant’s well-known registered mark, deviating only with the addition of a generic or descriptive term, suggests that Respondent knew of complainant’s rights in the CASH ‘TIL PAYDAY mark. Furthermore, the generic or descriptive terms incorporated into the domain names describe Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that Respondent likely chose the <cashtillpaydayloan.info>, <cashuntilpaydayloan.info> and <nofaxcashtilpaydayloan.info> domain names based on the distinctive and well known qualities of Complainant’s mark. Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith. 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 Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that the ICQ mark is so obviously connected with the complainant and its products that the use of the domain names by the respondent, who has no connection with the complainant, suggests opportunistic bad faith). 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 <cashtillpaydayloan.info>, <cashuntilpaydayloan.info> and <nofaxcashtilpaydayloan.info> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist Dated: November 22, 2005 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.