WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Direct Financial Solutions, LLC v. On behalf of the OWNER c/o whoisproxy.com / Oleg Bakanach

Case No. D2021-0427

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Direct Financial Solutions, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Peterson Conners LLP, United States.

The Respondent is On behalf of the OWNER c/o whoisproxy.com, United States / Oleg Bakanach, Russian Federation.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <mycashcentral.com> is registered with Key-Systems GmbH (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 11, 2021. On February 12, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 15, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 15, 2021, 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 February 15, 2021.

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 February 17, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 9, 2021. The Center received two email communications from the Respondent on February 26, 2021, and an additional email communication on March 2, 2021. On March 10, 2021, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Rules, the Center informed the Parties that it would proceed with panel appointment.

The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on March 22, 2021. 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 corporation registered in Delaware, United States. It is a provider of online consumer loans and has operated under the name and trademark CASH CENTRAL since 2005. The Complainant operates a website at “www.cashcentral.com” and provides evidence of a significant commercial profile.

The Complainant is the owner United States trademark number 3117069 for the standard character mark CASH CENTRAL, registered on July 18, 2006, for goods and services including “financial services” in International Class 36.

The disputed domain name was registered on April 27, 2018.

The disputed domain name has resolved to a website at “www.mycashcentral.com”. The website contains numerous instances of the term “Cash Central” and offers services related to consumer loans.

The Complainant seeks the transfer of the disputed domain name on the grounds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a) of the Policy).

5. Disposal of Proceeding by Consent

In the first email referred to above dated February 26, 2021, a party using an email address

“[… ]@mycashcentral.com” informed the Center that they were “ready to transfer the domain name without any procedures” and requested further instructions. The Center noted in reply to this communication that it had not come from the email address identified by the registrar and requested further clarification.

The second email referred to above dated February 26, 2021, was received from the same email address as the first email, but copied by way of “cc” the email address identified by the registrar. It essentially repeated the statement made in the first email.

The email referred to above dated March 2, 2021, was received from the email address identified by the registrar and copied by way of “cc” to the first email address. This email repeated that “I want to transfer the domain mycashcentral.com where you will need without any process.”

On the basis of the above communications, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has unequivocally consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name.

Rule 10(a) of the Rules gives panels the discretion to conduct proceedings in such manner as they deem appropriate under the Policy and the Rules. Under Rule 10(c), the Panel must “ensure that the proceeding takes place with due expedition.”

Where a complainant has sought transfer of a disputed domain name and the respondent consents to transfer, then a panel may make an order for transfer solely on the basis of that consent and without providing a reasoned decision as to the merits of the case: see e.g.section 4.10 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). However, despite a respondent’s consent, a panel may still proceed to a reasoned decision should it consider it appropriate to do so in the circumstances mentioned in section 4.10. Those circumstances may include a case where, notwithstanding the respondent’s consent, the complainant still seeks a recorded decision.

In this case, the Complainant indicated to the Center by an email dated March 1, 2021, that the Complainant would like to “settle” the matter in response to the Respondent’s emails, subject to the Respondent providing sufficient proof of identity. In the light of this confirmation, the Panel considers it appropriate to order a transfer of the disputed domain name on the basis of consent.

6. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <mycashcentral.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: March 25, 2021