The Complainant is Equifax Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by The GigaLaw, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, United States.

The Respondent is Jason Trudeau, 8542074 Canada Inc, Canada.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <equifixfinancial.com> (‘the Domain Name’) is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 26, 2020. On February 26, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 26, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 10, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on March 11, 2020.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 12, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 1, 2020. The Respondent sent 2 email communications on March 11 and 12, 2020. The Respondent did not submit a formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the commencement of Panel appointment process on April 2, 2020.

The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on April 12, 2020. 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

The Complainant is a global provider of information solutions and human resources business process. The Complainant is the owner of the trademark EQUIFAX, registered, inter alia, in the United States, reg. No. 1,045,574 (first used in commerce March 4, 1975; registered August 3, 1976) for use in connection with “conducting investigations and reporting on individuals and firms concerning credit, character and finances...”.

The Complainant’s registrations for the EQUIFAX trademark in Canada include the following (owned by the Complainant’s Canadian affiliate, Equifax Canada Co. 5700): Canadian Reg. No. TMA213693 (filed February 21, 1975; registered May 7, 1976) for use in connection with “[c]onducting investigations and reporting on individuals and firms concerning credit, character, and finances in connection with insurance, credit, employment and claims reporting services; and market research services”.

The Domain Name registered on December 30, 2019, has been used for a webpage appearing to provide credit building services but is not connected with the Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:

The Complainant is the owner of the trademark EQUIFAX, registered, inter alia, in the United States, reg. No. 1,045,574 (first used in commerce March 4, 1975; registered August 3, 1976) for use in connection with “conducting investigations and reporting on individuals and firms concerning credit, character and finances...”.

The Domain Name registered in 2019 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s EQUIFAX trademark, substituting the “a” in EQUIFAX with an “i", adding the generic word “financial” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, none of which prevent said confusing similarity.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant.

The Domain Name is being used in connection with a website that offers services related to those offered by the Complainant, by promising to help consumers “build or rebuild your credit” via “programs that help people to build credit safely”. By using the Domain Name in connection with a website that offers services related to those offered by the Complainant, the Respondent is not engaged in a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Finally, an obvious misspelling of the EQUIFAX trademark in the Domain Name is evidence that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests.

The Domain Name should be considered as having been registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent to disrupt the Complainant’s relationship with its customers or potential customers or attempt to attract Internet users for potential gain.

Given the global reach and popularity of the Complainant’s services under the EQUIFAX trademark it is inconceivable that the Respondent chose the Domain Name without knowledge of the Complainant’s activities and the name and trademark under which the Complainant is doing business.

“[T]he mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar... to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.” WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 3.1.4.

Further indications of bad faith are that the Domain Name contains an obvious misspelling of the EQUIFAX trademark, “financial” the Complainant’s area of business operation is included in the Domain Name and the Respondent used a privacy service. The Respondent previously passively held the Domain Name, which can also be an indication of bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not file a formal Response and instead sent an e-mail stating that the Respondent was a domain name registration service company called Impression Express which had registered the Domain Name for a client.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name consists of a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant’s EQUIFAX mark (registered in the United States and Canada in 1976 for credit reporting services) having a letter “i" instead of an “a” in its third syllable, the descriptive word “financial” and the gTLD “.com”.

The Panel agrees that a difference of one letter where an “i" instead of an “a” has been used in “Equifix” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s EQUIFAX trademark.

Further, the addition of the descriptive word “financial” and the gTLD “.com” do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark pursuant to the Policy.

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

As such the Panel holds that paragraph 4 (a) (i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of a domain name confusingly similar to its EQUIFAX trademark for credit related services.

The Respondent has stated he represents a domain name registration company called Impression Express and, therefore, does not appear to be commonly known by the Domain Name. The Respondent has not provided a formal Response or explained why he or a client of his would be entitled to register a domain name containing a term confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and use it for similar services.

The website attached to the Domain Name uses a term confusingly similar to the Complainant's EQUIFAX trademark to present what at first blush appear to be credit related services. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such, it does not appear to be a bona fide offering of goods and services. Moreover, the Panel notes that there is no physical address on the website at the Domain Name, and that the links at the footer of the page (“Privacy Policy”, “Legal mention”, “Terms & Conditions”) merely direct the user to the top of the same homepage, i.e., there are no further webpages associated with the Domain Name that provide any information on the Respondent’s (or its client’s) business so as to indicate that is may be a legitimate business.

The use of the Domain Name is commercial and so cannot be legitimate non-commercial fair use.

As such, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In the opinion of the Panel, the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent’s site is confusing and disruptive as a term confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark is used on the corresponding website without permission for what appear to be competing credit related services.

Given the use of the Domain Name in such a specialised field where the Complainant has long established rights, the Panel finds that it is more likely than not that the Respondent knew about the Complainant and its business, rights and services.

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website attached to the Domain Name or services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant.

The Panel notes the allegation of passive holding before the current use of the Domain Name, but since the Domain Name has now been used for apparently competing services to the Complainant, finds this allegation not to be material.

However, the Panel does note that, although there is a suggestion that there may be another respondent behind the Domain Name, as the Respondent says he offers a domain name registration service, the identity of any such additional respondent has been kept hidden and has not been evidenced by the Respondent.

As such, based on the fact that the Respondent has used a confusingly similar domain name to the Complainant’s EQUIFAX trademark to offer apparently competing services, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(iv) and 4 (b)(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 <equifixfinancial.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: April 23, 2020