Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

Complainant is Dollar Financial Group, Inc. , Berwyn, PA, USA ("Complainant") represented by Hilary B. Miller, Esq. Respondent is Pavon Financial Corporation, Laguna Beach, CA, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is loans-mart.com registered with BulkRegister.com.

The Panelist certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as the panelist in this proceeding. Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on October 18, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 16, 2000.

On October 19, 2000, BulkRegister.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name loans-mart.com is registered with BulkRegister.com and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. BulkRegister.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the BulkRegister.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANNís UDRP.

On October 20, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 9, 2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondentís registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@loans-mart.com by e-mail.

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On November 14, 2000, pursuant to Complainantís request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Uniform Rules "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its Decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forumís Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from the Respondent.

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

A. Complainant contends the following:

B. Respondent did not submit a response in this matter.

Complainant is one of the largest national originators of small consumer loans, using the LOAN MART name and mark. Since 1997 Complainant has originated over $310,000,000 in consumer loans, both at Complainantís stores and online. Respondent registered the domain name loans-mart.com on September 21, 2000. Respondentís filings shows an intent to use the loans-mart.com domain name to identify a web site that will offer consumer loans in direct competition with Complainant.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") requires that a complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;

(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Complainant has established that it "has rights" in the mark LOAN MART as evidenced by its federal registration with the USPTO, and its continuous use of the mark in commerce since 1997. The domain name loans-mart.com incorporates Complainantís mark, adding an ësí, a hyphen, and ë.com.í Such additions are inconsequential to a finding of similarity and in fact lend themselves even more to a finding of confusing similarity. See InfoSpace.com v. Tenenbaum Ofer, WIPO Case No. D2000-0075 ("The domain name "info-space.com" is identical to Complainantís INFOSPACE trademark. The addition of a hypen and .com are not distinguishing features"); Cream Pie Club v. Britany Halford, FA95235 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that "the addition of an "s" to the end of the Complainantís mark, "Cream Pie" does not prevent the likelihood of confusion caused by the use of the remaining identical mark. The domain name <creampies.com> is similar in sound, appearance, and connotation"). The Panel holds that the domain name loans-mart.com is confusingly similar to Complainantís LOAN MART mark.

Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name loans-mart.com. Specifically, Respondent has not provided any evidence to contradict Complainantís assertions that a) Respondent is not generally known by the mark, b) Respondent has made no commercial use of the mark and c) Respondent has made no offering of goods or services under the mark. Therefore, this Panel concludes, based on the evidence presented, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name loans-mart.com.

Under ICANN Policy, two sections establish registration and use in bad faith under the facts of this case. Under paragraph "(iii)", a Respondent that registers a domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor registers a domain name in bad faith. At paragraph "iv", a Respondent who uses the domain name intentionally to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondentís] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondentís web site or location does so in bad faith.

Here, the evidence indicates that Respondentís own proposed use of the domain name is to compete with Complainantís business. See EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding that the minor degree of variation from the Complainant's marks suggests that Respondent, the Complainantís competitor, registered the names primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant's business).

In addition, bad faith may be inferred if the domain name incorporates a mark, which is distinctive or famous at the time the domain name is registered. See Dr. Karl Albrecht v. Eric Natale FA 95465 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2000) ("The Respondent intentionally registered a domain name which uses the Complainantís name. There is no reasonable possibility that the domain name karlalbrecht.com was selected at random. There may be circumstances where such a registration could be done in good faith, but absent such evidence, the Panel can only conclude that the registration was done in bad faith").

The fact that Respondent has yet to provide competing services does not necessarily preclude a finding of use in bad faith. See CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone, D2000-0397 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent failed to provide any evidence to controvert Complainant's allegation that it registered the domain name in bad faith and where any future use of the domain name would do nothing but cause confusion with the Complainantís mark, except in a few limited noncommercial or fair use situations, which were not present).

Therefore, the Panel concludes that Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.

Having established all three UDRP elements, the panel concludes that the requested relief be granted. The domain name loans-mart.com shall be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.