WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

United States Warranty Corp. v. Regina Doran, RBM Ventures

Case No. D2019-1179

1. The Parties

Complainant is United States Warranty Corp., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., United States.

Respondent is Regina Doran, RBM Ventures, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <us-warranty.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 22, 2019. On May 23, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 24, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On June 3, 2019, the Center received an email communication from Respondent.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 6, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 26, 2019. Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, on June 27, 2019, the Center notified the Parties it would proceed to appoint the Administrative Panel.

The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on July 12, 2019. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

Complainant describes itself as “a full-service provider of finance and insurance products and training and support services to lenders, manufacturers and over 800 automobile dealers throughout the United States.” According to the Complaint, Complainant has used the marks UNITED STATES WARRANTY CORP. and USWC in commerce as a source identifier for its services since 1975. Complainant has owned the domain name <uswarranty.com> since 1998, and Complainant has used that domain name as its commercial website since that time. Complainant annexes to its Complaint various exhibits in support of the foregoing allegations.

The Domain Name was registered on April 21, 2019. According to Complainant, Respondent is using the Domain Name to set up false email addresses which are used to send emails to customers purportedly from Complainant. These emails attach documents which bear Complainant’s logo and describe Complainant’s business.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts that it has established the three elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name.

B. Respondent

Respondent has not replied to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel concludes that Complainant has sufficiently shown unregistered rights in the service mark US WARRANTY through use demonstrated in the record for the purposes of the Policy. The Panel concludes further that the Domain Name is identical to that mark. In addition, the Panel notes the overall circumstances of the case (particularly Respondent’s targeting of Complainant’s unregistered rights by sending emails to customers attaching documents with Complainant’s logo) support a finding of confusing similarity.

Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:

(i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

The Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Respondent has not come forward to explain her bona fides vis-à-vis the Domain Name. The undisputed record evidence here appears to show that Respondent is using the Domain Name to pass itself off to third parties as Complainant. That is manifestly not a legitimate use of the Domain Name.

Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation,” are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad faith”:

(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or

(ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.

The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. In view of the fact that the email attachments to Respondent’s false emails mimic Complainant’s logos and describe Complainant’s business and history, there can be no doubt that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain Name.

The Panel also finds bad faith use of the Domain Name. It is not clear from the record what Respondent’s end game is, but it is obvious that Respondent is improperly seeking to mislead third parties into believing that Respondent’s purportedly commercial email messages originate from Complainant. The Panel finds that this conduct constitutes bad faith within the meaning of the above-quoted Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv).

Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii).

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <us-warranty.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Robert A. Badgley
Sole Panelist
Date: July 30, 2019