Uspmts.com

The timeline behind uspmts.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION U.S. Payments, LLC v. Chris Conner Claim Number: FA2502002140983 PARTIES Complainant is U.S. Payments, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Henry B. Ward of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is Chris Conner ("Respondent"), Oklahoma, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <uspmts.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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. Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 19, 2025; Forum received payment on February 19, 2025. On February 20, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <uspmts.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 February 24, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of March 17, 2025 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@uspmts.com. Also on February 24, 2025, 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 March 18, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 a Response or any other submittal from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant provides payment processing goods and services It has rights in the U.S. PAYMENTS mark based upon its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Respondent's <uspmts.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the U.S. PAYMENTS mark as it incorporates the entire mark as an abbreviation and adds the ".com" generic top-level domain (gTLD). Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. It is not affiliated with Complainant and Complainant has not authorized it to use its mark, it is not commonly known by the domain name, and it is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use but instead is using the domain name to pass off as Complainant or an affiliate and offer the same goods and services as Complainant. Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith. It attempts to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website, by processing payments for the cannabis industry it tarnishes Complainant's mark, and it registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant 's rights in its marks. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 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 a complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name: (1) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (2) the 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, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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. Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. 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"), WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 4.3 ("In cases involving wholly unsupported and conclusory allegations advanced by the complainant, . . . panels may find that—despite a respondent's default—a complainant has failed to prove its case."). The WIPO Overview 3.0 is not a definitive statement of applicable law which governs any particular issue, but it does express a consensus among a significant number of UDRP panelists as to how particular issues typically are and should be resolved. This Panelist accepts that consensus on this and other issues addressed later in this Decision. The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding: Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The U.S. PAYMENTS mark was registered to Complainant with the USPTO (Reg. No. 4,014,740) on August 23, 2011 (USPTO registration certificate submitted as Complaint Annex F). Complainant's registration of its mark with the USPTO establishes its rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, "Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy."). Respondent's <uspmts.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the U.S. PAYMENTS mark. It fully incorporates the mark with the common "pmts" abbreviation for the PAYMENTS element, omits the periods and the space and adds the ".com" gTLD. These changes do not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them."), Sub-Zero, Inc. v. Viljami Ylönen / INTL Enterprises, FA 1965059 (Forum Nov. 5, 2021) ("Removal of punctuation and addition of a gTLD does not negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."), Mississippi Lottery Corp. v. Jonathan Carr, FA 1842961(Forum July 15, 2019) ("The Domain Name is also confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. It incorporates the LOTTERY element of Complainant's mark in its entirety, merely changing the MISSISSIPPI element to its recognized abbreviation "ms," and adding a gTLD. These changes are not sufficient to distinguish this Domain Name from Complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). The WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 1.7, states that the test for confusing similarity "typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name." Notwithstanding the changes described above, Complainant's mark is clearly recognizable within the domain name. For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the U.S. PAYMENTS mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests If a complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden of production shifts to respondent to come forward with evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in it. 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"). If a respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant's prima facie evidence will be sufficient to establish that respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent does come forward with such evidence, the Panel must assess the evidence in its entirety. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 2.1. Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent's rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii): (i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent has used or has made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because (i) it is not affiliated with Complainant and Complainant has not authorized it to use its mark, it is not commonly known by the domain name, and it is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use but instead is using the domain name to pass off as Complainant or an affiliate and to offer the same goods and services as Complainant. These allegations are addressed as follows: Complainant alleges that Respondent has no affiliation with it and that it has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use its mark. Complainant has specific competence to make these allegations and they are not disputed. In the absence of evidence that a respondent is authorized to use a complainant's mark in a domain name or that a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the respondent may be presumed to lack rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register Domain Name featuring the complainant's mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name), Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) ("Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name."). The WHOIS information provided to Forum by the registrar lists the named Respondent as the registrant of the domain name. This name bears no resemblance to the domain name. Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a domain name different from the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, however, UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the Domain Name or respondent's use of the same), Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The Panel is satisfied that Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complaint Annexes H and K contain screenshots of pages on the website resolving from the domain name. Respondent's website does not copy or mimic Complainant's advertising on Instagram (screenshot submitted as Complaint Annex D) in style or general layout. Complainant did not submit evidence of its own website, allegedly located at <www.uspayments.com>, so a comparison of the two websites was not possible. The pages on Respondent's website as displayed in Annex H represent that the site is sponsored by "uspmts" and does not contain any reference to Complainant's entity name or mark, but the "Become a Partner" page displayed in Annex K identifies the site owner as the named Respondent and the entity as "US Payments." Likewise, Respondent's Facebook page (screenshot submitted as Complaint Annex L) unambiguously represents Complainant as the site sponsor. Respondent's website advertises payment processing services, which are also offered by Complainant (Declaration of Tim Neece, President of Complainant, the "Neece Declaration"). There is nothing on Respondent's site to inform the visitor that the site is not associated with Complainant. Respondent is passing off as Complainant or an authorized affiliate, purporting to offer the same products or services offered by Complainant. This does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Netflix, Inc. v. Irpan Panjul / 3corp.inc, FA 1741976 (Forum Aug. 22, 2017) ("The usage of Complainant's NETFLIX mark which has a significant reputation in relation to audio visual services for unauthorised audio visual material is not fair as the site does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with Complainant and this amounts to passing off . . . As such the Panelist finds that Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name."), Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). On the evidence presented, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent's web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the respondent's web site or location or of a product of service on the respondent 's web site or location. The evidence of Respondent's conduct discussed above in the rights or legitimate interests analysis also supports a finding of bad faith registration and use, based upon the foregoing grounds articulated in the Policy and upon additional grounds adopted by UDRP panels over the years. First, by passing off as Complainant and offering to sell the same or similar products and services offered by Complainant, Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its web site. The evidence does not disclose whether Respondent is actually selling the products and services advertised on its website or fraudulently representing that it does, and luring unsuspecting consumers into bogus financial transactions. Regardless of which scenario is present here, Respondent's conduct fits squarely within the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and is manifest evidence of bad faith registration and use. Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). As discussed above, Respondent is using the domain name to pass off as Complainant. Policy ¶ 4(b) recognizes that mischief can manifest in many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. Worldcom Exchange, Inc. v. Wei.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D-2004-0955 (January 5, 2005). The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and passing off as a complainant, in and of itself, is evidence of bad faith. Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum December 27, 2017) (finding bad faith where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."). Finally, it is evident that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark when it registered the domain name in April 2021 (WHOIS printout submitted as Complaint Annex G shows creation date). Complainant began using its mark at least as early as the first use date of December 2004 shown on the USPTO registration certificate submitted as Complaint Annex F, and it is well-known for its payment processing services, having more than 1,000 payment kiosks in thirty-six (36) states and having processed approximately one billion U.S. dollars ($1,000,000,000) in electronic payment transactions in 2024 (Neece Declaration). Both Complainant and Respondent are domiciled in the same City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, which enhances the likelihood of actual knowledge. More importantly, Respondent had to have had actual knowledge of Complainant in order to advertise Complainant's products using Complainant's name. There is no question that Respondent knew of Complainant and its mark when it registered the domain name. Given the non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b), acquiring a confusingly similar domain name with actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in its mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). For the reasons above set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). In light of this finding the Panel declines to address Complainant's argument of tarnishing. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <uspmts.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist March 19, 2025 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.