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 Domain 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 needs 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 Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules” that is“Supplemental).

Prior to the guidelines, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the middle formally notified Respondent associated with the Complaint, in addition to procedures commenced on 10, 2010 august. Relative to the principles, paragraph 5(a), the deadline for reaction had been August 30, 2010. Respondent failed to submit any reaction. Properly, the Center notified Respondent of the standard on 31, 2010 august.

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

4. Factual Background

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

Complainant defines it self as a provider of monetary solutions to consumers that are underserved by old-fashioned banking institutions. Complainant’s business sections consist of: charge cards; revolutionary and non-traditional financial obligation data recovery solutions; retail micro-loans; and vehicle financing.

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

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

Complainant holds two trademarks that are registered the United States Patent and Trademark workplace for the mark PURPOSE ADVANCE LOAN. Both markings suggest a very first use within business of March 19, 2009, therefore 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 cash advances; installment loans; pay day loans; economic solutions, namely, credit, debit and cash-advance deal services offered via electronic kiosks.”

Respondent registered the Domain title on 29, 2009 june. Respondent is utilizing the Domain title regarding the a web page that purports to supply clients a “100% private and application that is secure] will get you the bucks you’ll need quickly.” This content at Respondent’s web site largely mimics, usually verbatim, the information at Complainant’s primary site.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

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

(ii) Respondent doesn’t have liberties or interests that are legitimate respect of this website Name; and

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant obviously has registered trademark legal rights within the mark PURPOSE ADVANCE LOAN, which is undisputed that Complainant ended up being using the mark in business for 3 months ahead of Respondent’s enrollment regarding the website Name. The difference that is only the mark plus the Domain Name could be the latter’s addition associated with 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 simple addition of those three letters will not over come the confusing similarity produced by the identification of this words “purpose cash loan” into the principal part of the Second-Level Domain. See Nutri/System IPHC, Inc. v. Larry Mims title loans Tennessee, WIPO Case No. D2008-0657 (transferring ).

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

Leave a Reply

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