WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center شركة التقنيات العصرية
thumb image

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center


CompuCredit Holdings Corporation, CompuCredit Intellectual Property Holdings Corp. II v. Cyberwire, LLC.

1. The Events

Complainant is CompuCredit Holdings Corporation, CompuCredit Intellectual Property Holdings Corp. II of Atlanta, Georgia, usa, represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, legal professional, LLC, united states.

Respondent is Cyberwire, LLC. of Gulf Breeze, Florida, usa.

2. The Website Name and Registrar

The disputed domain title

3. Procedural History

The Complaint had been filed utilizing the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 4, 2010. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal demands regarding the Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the principles for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), additionally the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

Relative to the principles, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the guts formally notified Respondent associated with Complaint, together with procedures commenced on 10, 2010 august. According to the principles, paragraph 5(a), the deadline for reaction ended up being August 30, 2010. Respondent failed to submit any reaction. Properly, the Center notified Respondent of its standard on 31, 2010 august.

The middle appointed Robert A. Badgley while the single panelist in this matter on September 6, 2010. The Panel finds it was correctly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of recognition and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as needed by the middle to make sure conformity because of the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The facts that are following alleged into the grievance, supported by annexes within the record, and unrebutted by Respondent.

Complainant defines it self as a provider of monetary solutions to customers who’re underserved by conventional finance institutions. Complainant’s company sections include: bank cards; revolutionary and non-traditional financial obligation data recovery solutions; retail micro-loans; and vehicle lending.

Complainant’s subsidiary could be the registrant associated with website name

, that has been produced on 30, 2005 august. Complainant utilizes this website name associated with an internet site that provides customers a “secure online application [that] provides an instant and private method to submit an application for a loan.”

Complainant holds two authorized trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark workplace for the mark PURPOSE ADVANCE LOAN. Both markings suggest an use that is first business of March 19, 2009, plus the markings had been registered on July 7, 2009 and July 21, 2009, correspondingly. The services provided under these marks are the following: “Providing short-term payday loans; installment loans; pay day loans; economic solutions, specifically, credit, debit and cash-advance transaction services offered via electronic kiosks.”

Respondent registered the Domain title on June 29, 2009. Respondent is utilizing the website name associated with an online site that purports to supply clients a “100% private and safe application [that] could possibly get you the bucks you want quickly.” This content at Respondent’s site largely mimics, often verbatim, the information at Complainant’s primary web site.

5. Events’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant’s salient factual contentions are established into the Background” section that is“Factual above. Complainant claims that Respondent registered the Domain Name which can be identical or confusingly comparable to a trademark for which Complainant has liberties, that Respondent lacks liberties or genuine curiosity about the Domain Name, and that Respondent registered and it is utilising the website name in bad faith. Complainant’s arguments should be talked about when you look at the “Discussion and Findings” section below.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to respond to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) associated with the Policy lists the 3 elements which Complainant must satisfy:

(i) the website name is identical or confusingly much like a trademark or solution mark by which Complainant has liberties; and

(ii) Respondent doesn’t have legal rights or genuine passions in respect associated with the website Name; and

(iii) the website Name was registered title loans with bad credit Tennessee and it is getting used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Comparable

Complainant demonstrably has registered trademark legal rights into the mark PURPOSE CASH LOAN, which is undisputed that Complainant ended up being making use of the mark in commerce for 90 days just before Respondent’s enrollment of this Domain Name. The difference that is only the mark additionally the Domain Name is the latter’s addition for the letters “com” at the conclusion associated with the Second-Level Domain, in other words., prior to the “.com” Top-Level Domain or “extension”. The Panel discovers that the mere addition among these three letters will not over come the confusing similarity developed by the identification associated with words “purpose cash loan” into the principal percentage of the Second-Level Domain. See Nutri/System IPHC, Inc. v. Larry Mims, WIPO Case No. D2008-0657 (transferring ).

Correctly, the Panel discovers that Policy paragraph 4(a i that is)( is pleased.