WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

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, united states, represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, legal professional, LLC, usa.

Respondent is Cyberwire, LLC. of Gulf Breeze, Florida, united states.

2. The Website Name and Registrar

The disputed domain title

3. Procedural History

The Complaint ended up being filed utilizing the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 4, 2010. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal demands associated with Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the guidelines for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), while the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

Prior to the principles, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the guts formally notified Respondent for the Complaint, in addition to procedures commenced on 10, 2010 august. According to the principles, paragraph 5(a), the date that is due reaction ended up being August 30, 2010. Respondent failed to submit any reaction. Properly, the Center notified Respondent of its standard on August 31, 2010.

The middle appointed Robert A. Badgley since the panelist that is sole this matter on September 6, 2010. The Panel discovers that it was correctly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as needed by the Center to make certain conformity because of the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

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

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

Complainant’s subsidiary may be the registrant associated with domain title

, that has been produced on August 30, 2005. Complainant utilizes this domain title regarding the a internet site that provides customers a “secure online application [that] provides a fast and private solution to make an application for that loan.”

Complainant holds two authorized trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark workplace for the mark PURPOSE CASH LOAN. Both markings indicate a very first use within business of March 19, 2009, in addition to markings had been registered on July 7, 2009 and July 21, 2009, respectively. The services provided under these markings are the following: “Providing temporary cash advances; installment loans; pay day loans; economic solutions, 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 website name associated with a web page that purports to provide customers a “100% private and safe application [that] will get you the money you will need quickly.” This content at Respondent’s web web web site largely mimics, usually verbatim, the information at Complainant’s primary site.

5. Events’ Contentions

A. Complainant

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

B. Respondent

Respondent would not respond to 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 interests that are legitimate respect associated with Domain Name; and

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Comparable

Complainant plainly 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 3 months just before Respondent’s enrollment associated with the Domain Name. The difference that is only the mark and also the Domain Name may be the latter’s addition associated with the letters “com” at the conclusion regarding the Second-Level Domain, in other words., right before the “.com” Top-Level Domain or “extension”. The Panel discovers that the simple addition of those three letters doesn’t over come the confusing similarity produced because of the identification associated with 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 ).

Correctly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a i that is)( is happy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *