ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL CHOICE
CNU On The Web Holdings, LLC v. Mardva Logsdon, cashnetusafinance
1. The Events
Complainant is CNU on line Holdings, LLC of Chicago, Illinois, united states, represented by Foley & Lardner LLP, United States.
Respondent is Mardva Logsdon, cashnetusafinance, of Niceville, Florida, united states of america.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name, (“Domain Name”), is registered with crazy West cash-central.net Domains, LLC (“Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint had been filed with all the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (“Center”) on April 11, 2017. A request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name on April 12, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar. On April 12, 2017, the Registrar sent by e-mail to your Center its verification reaction confirming information associated towards the enrollment, but disclosing registrant and email address when it comes to Domain Name that differed from that within the problem. The guts delivered a contact interaction to Complainant on April 19, 2017 supplying the registrant that is new contact information disclosed by the Registrar and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to your problem. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on 25, 2017 april.
The Center verified that the grievance alongside the amended issue pleased the formal demands of this Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (“Policy” or “UDRP”), the guidelines for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”), and also the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Supplemental Rules”).
Prior to the principles, paragraphs 2 and 4, the middle formally notified Respondent regarding the Complaint, additionally the procedures commenced on 28, 2017 april. Relative to the principles, paragraph 5, the deadline for Response had been might 18, 2017. Respondent would not submit any response. Correctly, the middle notified Respondent’s standard may 19, 2017.
The middle appointed Debra J. Stanek while the sole panelist in this matter on June 2, 2017. 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 guts to make sure conformity because of the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
Complainant owns and utilizes the mark CASHNETUSA for lending solutions. Complainant has lots of trademark registrations for the mark and a wide range of stylized variations, including an united states of america trademark registration (No. 3,210,976) registered on February 20, 2007, claiming a romantic date of very first use in 2004, and usa trademark registrations including stylized variations of CASHNETUSA in blue and orange such as the icon “$” in a group instead of the letter “s”, one of that also includes the motto “cash’s on the road.”
Respondent registered the Domain Name on April 12, 2016; people to the web site to that the website Name resolves are offered a website offering payday loans. Your home page prominently displays CA$HNETUSA in blue and orange in a font much like which used by Complainant, combined with the motto “cash’s in the real method.”
In-may 2016, Complainant demanded that Respondent end utilizing the CASHNETUSA markings in its Domain Name and on the site. Respondent would not respond to Complainant’s page and email that is subsequent.
5. Events’ Contentions
1. Identical or Confusingly Comparable
Complainant has used the title and markings CASHNETUSA and CASHNETUSA.COM for the financing as well as other economic solutions since at the least 2004 and owns united states of america federal registrations when it comes to markings CASHNETUSA, CA$HNETUSA.COM (in a form that is stylized, and CA$HNETUSA MONEY’S ON YOUR WAY. Complainant provides its services via its internet site during the domain title , which it registered in 2004.
After its significant marketing advertising, Complainant has continued to develop considerable will that is good track record of its CASHNETUSA markings and for the associated products or services.
The website Name is confusingly comparable to Complainant’s CASHNETUSA markings. It incorporates the entirety associated with CASHNETUSA mark, incorporating the non-distinctive and descriptive term “finance.”
The probability of confusion is increased because Respondent supplies the exact same monetary solutions, including payday advances and payday loans, towards the exact same consumer market as Complainant.
2. Legal rights or interests that are legitimate
In accordance with the “WhoIs” database, Respondent registered the Domain Name on April 12, 2016, well after adoption and very first utilization of the CASHNETUSA mark.
Respondent just isn’t a licensee of Complainant and contains maybe maybe not been authorized to utilize some of the CASHNETUSA markings or comparable mark. Respondent registered the Domain Name without the authorization, consent or knowledge of Complainant.
Respondent has not made any utilization of, or demonstrable preparations to make use of, the Domain title or any name corresponding to your Domain title associated with a bona offering that is fide of or solutions.
The website name can be used for a web page that has counterfeit versions of Complainant’s markings, including its “CashNetUSA” logo design and “cash’s from the way” motto, along with copies of copyrighted photographs, pictures, and text copied from Complainant’s site.
Respondent’s site purports to supply pay day loans and payday loans and collects consumer contact and monetary account as well as other information that is sensitive. Your website seems to result from Complainant and asks “Existing Customers” to enter login along with other account and banking information, presumably so Respondent may obtain account details from Complainant’s clients.
Respondent never been commonly understood by the Domain Name and it has no trademark or rights that are service-mark the Domain Name. Complainant just isn’t conscious of any incorporated or business that is registered for Respondent making use of the website Name, and absolutely nothing in Respondent’s WhoIs information or in every other information understood about Respondent implies that Respondent is usually known because of the disputed Domain Name.