Theclearinghouseusa.org

The timeline behind theclearinghouseusa.org

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 The Clearing House Payments Company L.L.C. v. George Hawkins Claim Number: FA2505002153802 PARTIES Complainant is The Clearing House Payments Company L.L.C. ("Complainant"), represented by Mary Grace Gallagher of Alston & Bird, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is George Hawkins ("Respondent"), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <theclearinghouseusa.org>, registered with NameSilo, 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. Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 5, 2025; Forum received payment on May 5, 2025. On May 5, 2025, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <theclearinghouseusa.org> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 May 5, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 27, 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@theclearinghouseusa.org. Also on May 5, 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 May 28, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 asserts trademark rights in THE CLEARING HOUSE. Complainant holds a national registration for that trademark. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant further alleges that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. In particular, Complainant states that it has used THE CLEARING HOUSE in connection with financial clearing house services well prior to creation of the disputed domain name on July 23, 2024. Complainant states that the disputed domain name resolves to a website which slavishly copies Complainant's www.theclearinghouse.org website and that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to harvest confidential information including login and password information from Complainant's users. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that: 1. Complainant provides financial clearing house services and is the owner of, inter alia, United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 4,132,217, registered April 24, 2012, for THE CLEARING HOUSE & Design; and 2. the disputed domain name was registered on July 23, 2024, and resolves to a website that copies in detail Complainant's own website. 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)). Complainant therefore has rights in THE CLEARING HOUSE & Design since it provides proof of registration of that trademark with the USPTO, a national trademark authority. For the purposes of comparison of the disputed domain name with the trademark, the Panel notes that whilst the registered trademark carries a graphical element, the words remain clear and obvious and so the registration can be treated as a word mark. Further, the gTLD, ".org" can be disregarded (see, for example, Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Forum Dec. 31, 2007)). The disputed domain name then differs from the trademark by simple addition of the country name abbreviation, "usa". The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark (see, for example, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) finding that "[w]here a relevant trademark is recognizable 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."); Franklin Covey Co. v. franklincoveykorea, FA 1774660 (Forum Apr. 11, 2018) finding that the <franklincoveykorea.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the FRANKLIN COVEY mark, as "[t]he addition of a geographic term and a gTLD do not negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."; The Clearing House Payments Company L.L.C. v. Henry Rausch, FA 2106624 (Forum Aug. 8, 2024) finding <theclearinghouseus.org> confusing similar to the trademark). Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or 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) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are 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 need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)). The name of the domain name owner does not carry any suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by the domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights of its own. Respondent's website merely copies Complainant's website and so Respondent passes itself off as Complainant. A prima facie case has been made (see, for example,The Clearing House Payments Company L.L.C. v. Henry Rausch, op.cit., finding that "Respondent used <theclearinghouseus.org> to address a website that mimics Complainant's genuine website. Respondent's <theclearinghouseus.org> website thereby attempted to pass itself off as Complainant's to cause consumers to falsely believe that Respondent is, or is affiliated with, Complainant. Respondent's use of the <theclearinghouseus.org> domain name in this manner constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). The onus shifts to Respondent and in the absence of a Response, that onus is not discharged and the Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or interests. Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith. Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. The four specified circumstances are: (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 who 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 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, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent's website 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 website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.' The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct falls under paragraph 4(b)(iv) above. The domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark and suggests to internet users that they have reached Complainant's official website. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website (see, for example, Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Webdesk Two, FA1808001800636 (Forum Sept. 5, 2018) finding bad faith in registration of <spectrumpack.com> because "[u]se of a domain name to create a false impression of affiliation with a complainant in order to compete with and disrupt the complainant's business is behavior indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv)."; Chick-fil-A, Inc. and CFA Properties, Inc. v. Sushil Ghai, FA2010818 (Forum Oct. 14, 2022) ("Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain name's resolving website, which attempts to pass off as complainant while phishing. This is evidence that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy. 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 <theclearinghouseusa.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist June 2, 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.