Balancredit.com

The timeline behind balancredit.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 Braviant Holdings, LLC v. yang zhi chao Claim Number: FA2111001973189 PARTIES Complainant is Braviant Holdings, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Lindsay M.R. Jones of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is yang zhi chao (“Respondent”), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <balancredit.com>, registered with eName Technology Co., Ltd.. PANEL The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 13, 2021; the Forum received payment on November 13, 2021. The Complaint was received in English. On November 16, 2021, eName Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <balancredit.com> domain name is registered with eName Technology Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eName Technology Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eName Technology Co., Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On November 18, 2021, the Forum served the English language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 8, 2021 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@balancredit.com. Also on November 18, 2021, the Chinese and English language Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On December 15, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING Complainant alleges that, because Respondent is conversant in English, the proceeding should be conducted in English. The Panel has the discretion under UDRP Rule 11(a) to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings taking into consideration the particular circumstances. See FilmNet Inc. v. Onetz, FA 96196 (Forum Feb. 12, 2001) (finding it appropriate to conduct the proceeding in English under Rule 11, despite Korean being designated as the required language in the registration agreement because the respondent submitted a response in English after receiving the complaint in Korean and English). The Panel notes that the disputed domain name and the related website contents are in English and thus determines that this proceeding will be conducted in English. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant 1. Respondent’s <bittmax.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BITMEX mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <bittmax.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and uses the <bittmax.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent did not file a Response. FINDINGS Complainant, Braviant Holdings, LLC, offers personal loans and lines of credit under the BALANCE CREDIT mark. Complainant holds a registration for the BALANCE CREDIT mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 5,767,454, registered June 4, 2019). Respondent registered the <bittmax.com> domain name on July 7, 2015, and uses it to host pay-per-click links to financial services, in competition with 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." 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. 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(f), 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the BALANCE CREDIT mark based on registration of the mark with the USPTO. The Panel notes that the Complainant’s rights date back to the first use date of August 1, 2013, as shown in the USPTO registration. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”) Respondent’s <balancredit.com> domain name uses a slightly misspelled version of Complainant’s BALANCE CREDIT mark and adds the “.com” gTLD. Misspelling a mark and adding a gTLD to the mark is not sufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. zhang qin, FA 1626511 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding, “The relevant comparison then resolves to the trademark, TWITCH, with the term, ‘titch,’ which, as can be readily seen, merely removes the letter ‘w’ from the trademark. In spite of that omission the compared integers remain visually and aurally very similar and so Panel finds them to be confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy.”); see also Wells Fargo & Company v. VALERIE CARRINGTON, FA 1621718 (Forum July 2, 2015) (finding that the <wllsfago.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the WELLS FARGO mark as the domain name merely omits the “e” and “r” from the mark while adding the “.com” gTLD suffix.). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <balancredit.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BALANCE CREDIT mark. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Once Complainant make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”). Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <balancredit.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not permitted Respondent to use the BALANCE CREDIT mark. The WHOIS information of record identifies “yang zhi chao” as the registrant. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See H-D U.S.A., LLC, v. ilyas Aslan / uok / Domain Admin ContactID 5645550 / FBS INC / Whoisprotection biz, FA 1785313 (Forum June 25, 2018) (“The publicly available WHOIS information identifies Respondent as ‘Ilyas Aslan’ and so there is no prima facie evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by either of the [<harleybot.bid> and <harleybot.com>] domain names.”); see also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). Complainant also argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name or a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert users to competing loan services. Using a disputed domain name to divert users to competing goods and services does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Invesco Ltd. v. Premanshu Rana, FA 1733167 (Forum July 10, 2017) (“Use of a domain name to divert Internet users to a competing website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”); see also Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees). Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpage of the disputed domain name showing pay-per-click hyperlinks to competing loan services. The Panel finds that Respondent is not using the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <balancredit.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent uses it to divert users to competing loan services. Using a disputed domain name to divert users to competing goods and services can be evidence of bad faith disruption of a complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See block.one v. Negalize Interactive Things, FA 1798280 (Forum Aug. 21, 2018) (“Offering links to competing products or services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another.”); see also Capital One Financial Corp. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA1504001615034 (Forum June 4, 2015) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <capitaloneonebank.com> domain name to display links to the complainant’s competitors, such as Bank of America, Visa, Chase and American Express constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). Complainant also argues that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BALANCE CREDIT mark based on registration of the mark and Respondent’s diversion of users to competing services. The Panel agrees and finds Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BALANCE CREDIT mark when it registered the disputed domain name, showing bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <balancredit.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: December 16, 2021 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.