Rocketloans.ai

The timeline behind rocketloans.ai

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 Rocket Mortgage, LLC v. Registration Private / Domains By Proxy, LLC Claim Number: FA2401002079894 PARTIES Complainant is Rocket Mortgage, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by David K. Caplan of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Registration Private / Domains By Proxy, LLC ("Respondent"), Arizona, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <rocketloans.ai>, registered with 1API GmbH. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 18, 2024; Forum received payment on January 18, 2024. On January 22, 2024, 1API GmbH confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <rocketloans.ai> domain name is registered with 1API GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 1API GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the 1API GmbH 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 January 24, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 13, 2024 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@rocketloans.ai. Also on January 24, 2024, the 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On February 14, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 Complainant states that it is a well-known provider of mortgage lending and personal loan services, with a particularly visible presence online. Complainant's roots date back to 1985, with the founding of Rock Financial, which would later become Rocket Mortgage. Rock Financial started as a mortgage broker and a few years later became a mortgage lender. In 1998, Rock Financial started using the mark ROCKETLOAN and that same year, it made the revolutionary decision to move the mortgage process online. As the first step in implementing its vision of an online mortgage process, the company launched the <rockloans.com> website in 1999, quickly positioning it as one of the fastest growing online retail mortgage lenders on the internet. The company grew exponentially over the years,1 and in November 2015, it launched Rocket Mortgage. Since then, Complainant has expanded its ROCKET brand to include additional online lending-related offerings, including Rocket Loans, Rocket Homes, Rocket Money, Rocket Solar, and Rocket Auto. Complainant is considered to be America's largest mortgage lender. Complainant closed $133 billion in mortgage value in 2022 alone. Complainant is also the nation's largest Federal Housing Administration (FHA) lender and is a premier Veteran Affairs (VA) lender. Complainant's success and excellence have been recognized in the form of numerous awards. Consumer surveys indicate that Complainant has over 90% client retention rate. Complainant asserts rights in the ROCKETLOAN mark through its registration in the United States in 1999. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to its ROCKETLOAN mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the letter "s" and the ".ai" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a parked page that displays advertising links to services that compete with those of Complainant. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving website displays competing advertising hyperlinks. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names: a reverse WHOIS search for the IP address associated with the disputed domain name revealed several other domain names that appear to incorporate third party trademarks. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has registered trademark rights for the mark ROCKETLOAN and uses it to provide lending services. The mark was registered in 1999. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The disputed domain name was registered in 2023. The resolving website displays advertising links to services that compete with those of Complainant. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's ROCKETLOAN mark in its entirety, merely adding the letter "s" and the ".ai" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Such changes fail sufficiently to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Brooks Sports, Inc. v. chen jiajin, FA 1930406 (Forum Mar. 30, 2021) (finding that "adding random letters and a gTLD…fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Registration Private / Domains By Proxy, LLC". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The resolving website displays advertising hyperlinks for services that compete with those of Complainant. Use of a domain name to redirect users to unrelated third-party sites (whether or not they compete with Complainant) is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Trulia, Inc. v. Armen A, FA 1586491 (Forum Dec. 2, 2014) (finding that a parked page containing pay-per-click advertising links that resolve to the websites of Complainant's competitors did "not constitute a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services, or a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial fair use"); see also Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int'l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant); see also Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. josh greenly / All Access Tickets, FA 1629217 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as required under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to host a web page that featured links to services that competed with those of the complainant). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant alleges that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names because a reverse WHOIS search for the IP address associated with the disputed domain name revealed several other domain names that appear to incorporate third party trademarks. But Complainant does not allege—much less provide evidence to show—that Respondent has been found, in previous UDRP proceedings, to have registered and used domain names in bad faith. Thus the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proof for this allegation and will not further discuss it. Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website displays advertising links to services that compete with those of Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name to redirect consumers to competing goods or 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 Guidehouse LLP v. Zhi Chao Yang, FA 2013476 (Forum Oct. 31, 2022) ("[T]he resolving website displays advertising links to competing services. This constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."); see also 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, FA 1615034 (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)); see also Capital One Financial Corp. v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1598657 (Forum Feb. 20, 2015) ("This Panel agrees that Respondent's use as shown in Exhibits C-D illustrates that Respondent here seeks commercial gain through a likelihood of confusion, as competing hyperlinks have been found to establish evidence of intent to seek commercial gain through referral fees, and thus demonstrates bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv). Moreover, by merely adding an "s" to Complainant's mark, Respondent engages in typosquatting. A finding of typosquatting can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Adorama, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA 1610020 (Forum May 1, 2015) ("Respondent has also engaged in typosquatting, which is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondents who capitalize on common typing errors engage in bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). As such, the Panel finds bad faith typosquatting under 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 <rocketloans.ai> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: February 14, 2024 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.