Pubblicato il Lascia un commento

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center


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

1. The Parties

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

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

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The domain name that is disputed

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 needs associated with Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the principles for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), plus the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

Relative to the guidelines, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the middle formally notified Respondent associated with the Complaint, in addition to procedures commenced on August 10, 2010. Relative to the guidelines, paragraph 5(a), the date that is due Response had been August 30, 2010. Respondent didn’t submit any reaction. Correctly, the Center notified Respondent of their default on 31, 2010 august.

The middle appointed Robert A. Badgley due to the fact panelist that is sole this matter on September 6, 2010. The Panel discovers it was correctly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of recognition and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required because of the guts to make sure conformity aided by the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

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

Complainant defines it self as a provider of economic services to customers that are underserved by old-fashioned institutions that are financial. Complainant’s company sections consist of: bank cards; revolutionary and non-traditional financial obligation data recovery solutions; retail micro-loans; and vehicle financing.

Complainant’s subsidiary could be the registrant regarding the website name

, that was developed on 30, 2005 august. Complainant utilizes this website name regarding the a site which provides customers a “secure online application [that] provides a fast and private option to make an application for a loan.”

Complainant holds two trademarks that are registered the United States Patent and Trademark workplace for the mark PURPOSE CASH LOAN. Both markings indicate a first use within commerce of March 19, 2009, as well as the markings had been registered on July 7, 2009 and July 21, 2009, correspondingly. The services provided under these markings are as follows: “Providing temporary payday loans; installment loans; pay day loans; economic services, particularly, credit, debit and cash-advance deal services offered via electronic kiosks.”

Respondent registered the Domain title on June 29, 2009. Respondent is utilizing the Domain title regarding the a site that purports to provide clients a “100% private and application that is secure] will get you the bucks you’ll need quickly.” This content at Respondent’s web web site largely mimics, often verbatim, this content at Complainant’s website that is main.

5. Events’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant’s salient factual contentions are set forth within the Background” section that is“Factual above. Complainant claims that Respondent registered the website name which will be identical or confusingly just like a trademark for which Complainant has liberties, that Respondent lacks legal rights or genuine curiosity about the Domain Name, and that Respondent registered and it is utilizing the Domain title in bad faith. Complainant’s arguments is likely to be talked about into the “Discussion and Findings” section below.

B. Respondent

Respondent didn’t answer Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) for 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 legal rights; and

(ii) Respondent doesn’t have liberties or genuine passions in respect associated with Domain Name; and

(iii) the website Name happens to be registered and it is used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Comparable

Complainant demonstrably has registered trademark liberties into the mark PURPOSE CASH LOAN, and it’s also undisputed that Complainant ended up being utilizing the mark in business for 90 days prior to Respondent’s enrollment associated with website Name. The difference that is only the mark therefore the Domain title is the latter’s addition associated with the letters “com” by the end associated with the Second-Level Domain, in other words., prior to the “.com” Top-Level Domain or “extension”. The Panel discovers that the simple addition of those three letters will not overcome the confusing similarity produced because of the identification regarding the words “purpose cash loan” within the principal percentage of the Second-Level Domain. See Nutri/System IPHC, Inc. v. Larry Mims, WIPO Case No. D2008-0657 (transferring ).

Properly, the Panel discovers that Policy paragraph 4(a i that is)( is happy.

Lascia un commento