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, united states.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The domain name that is disputed

3. Procedural History

The Complaint ended up being filed with all the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 4, 2010. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal needs for the Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the principles for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and also the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

According to the guidelines, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the guts formally notified Respondent associated with Complaint, additionally the procedures commenced on August 10, 2010. Relative to the guidelines, paragraph 5(a), the deadline for reaction had been August 30, 2010. Respondent failed to submit any reaction. Correctly, the Center notified Respondent of their standard on 31, 2010 august.

The middle appointed Robert A. Badgley due to the fact single panelist in 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 by the Center to ensure conformity because of the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

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

Complainant defines it self as a provider of monetary solutions to customers that are underserved by conventional institutions that are financial. Complainant’s business sections consist of: bank cards; revolutionary and non-traditional financial obligation data recovery solutions; retail micro-loans; and car financing.

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

, that was produced on 30, 2005 august. Complainant utilizes this domain name regarding the an internet site that provides customers a “secure online application [that] provides an instant and private option 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 suggest an use that is first 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 the following: “Providing short-term payday loans; installment loans; payday advances; economic solutions, particularly, credit, debit and cash-advance deal services offered via electronic kiosks.”

Respondent registered the Domain title on 29, 2009 june. Respondent is utilizing the website name associated with a internet site that purports to supply clients a “100% private and application that is secure] will get you the money you will need quickly.” This content at Respondent’s web site largely mimics, usually verbatim, the information at Complainant’s website that is main.

5. Events’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant’s salient factual contentions are established when you look at the Background” section that is“Factual above. Complainant claims that Respondent registered the Domain title which will be identical or confusingly comparable to a trademark by which Complainant has liberties, that Respondent lacks legal rights or interest that is legitimate the Domain Name, and that Respondent registered fast payday loans and it is utilizing the Domain title in bad faith. Complainant’s arguments should be talked about into the “Discussion and Findings” section below.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to answer Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) for the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy:

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

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

(iii) the website Name happens to be registered and 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 had been utilising the mark in business for 3 months just before Respondent’s enrollment associated with website Name. The difference that is only the mark additionally the Domain title may be the latter’s addition for the letters “com” at the conclusion for the Second-Level Domain, in other words., right before the “.com” Top-Level Domain or “extension”. The Panel discovers that the mere addition of the three letters doesn’t over come the confusing similarity developed by the identity regarding the words “purpose cash loan” when you look at the principal part 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.