Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Household International, Inc., Prospect Heights, IL, USA ("Complainant") represented by Larry L. Saret, Laff, Shitesel & Saret, Ltd. The Respondent is F.I.A., Mc Kees Rocks, PA, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is householdloans.com registered with Register.com.

The Panelist certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as the panelist in this proceeding.

Judge Ralph Yachnin, as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on November 1, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 31, 2000.

On November 6, 2000, Register.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name householdloans.com is registered with Register.com and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On November 7, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 27, 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 Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@householdloans.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 December 1, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin, 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 Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from the Respondent.

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

A. Complainant

The Complainant alleges the following regarding the domain name householdloans.com:

B. Respondent

Respondent has not submitted a response in this matter.

Complainant bases its complaint on the service marks HOUSEHOLD, HOUSEHOLD FINANCE, and HOUSEHOLD BANK and on numerous service marks which include the word HOUSEHOLD. Complainant holds several United States registrations for the above-listed marks. Complainant, and its predecessor in interest have done business under the HOUSEHOLD mark since as early as 1935, under the HOUSEHOLD FINANCE service mark since as early as 1940 and under the HOUSEHOLD BANK service mark since as early as 1983. Complainant uses the internet to advertises its products and services through various websites identified by the domain names household.com, hfc.com, and householdloan.com.

Respondent registered the domain name householdloan.com on September 27, 1999.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") requires that the 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 the Complainant has rights;

(2) the 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.

As the Respondent has failed to submit a response to the complaint, the Panel may make reasonable inferences, including accepting as true all of the allegations of the complaint. See ICANN Policy Rules 14(a),(b). See also Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson, D2000-0009, (WIPO February 29, 2000).

Under ICANN Policy 4(a)(i), the Complainant has rights in a numerous HOUSEHOLD marks and the domain name householdloans.com is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.

The record indicates that Complainant holds numerous U.S. registrations for various service marks related to finance incorporating its HOUSEHOLD marks. Complainant’s federal registrations are sufficient evidence to indicate that it has rights in the HOUSEHOLD marks under the ICANN Policy.

The domain name at issue, householdloans.com, entirely incorporates Complainant’s HOUSEHOLD mark. The addition of the word ‘loans’ adds to the potential confusion in light of the fact that part of Complainant’s business is the offering of consumer loans. See e.g. Caterpillar Inc. v. Matthew Quin, D2000-0314 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the disputed domain names of caterpillarparts.com and caterpillarspares.com were found to be confusingly similar to the registered trademarks CATERPILLAR and CATERPILLAR DESIGN because "the idea suggested by the disputed domain names and the trademarks was that the goods and services offered in association with the domain name are manufactured by or sold by the Complainant or one of the Complainants approved distributors.")

The fact that Complainant operates a web site identified by the domain name householdloan.com increases the likelihood of confusion already caused by Respondent’s choice of domain name. The addition of the letter ‘s’ only adds to the confusing similarity. See e.g. Oxygen Media, LLC v. Primary Source, D2000-0362 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that the domain name 0xygen.com (with zero in place of letter O) is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark by exploiting upon likely mistakes by users when entering the URL address). Therefore, this panel concludes, for the purposes of ICANN Policy 4(a), the domain name householdloans.com is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOUSEHOLD mark.

Complainant has made a prima facia showing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name householdloans.com by alleging that (i) Respondent has made no use of the domain name or shown preparations to use the domain name; (ii) Respondent is not commonly know by the domain name and has not acquired any rights in the domain name; (iii) Respondent is not making a noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.

There is no evidence in the record that would indicate that Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name householdloans.com. Merely registering the domain name is not sufficient to establish rights or legitimate interests for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc. v. Enterdomains, D2000-0387 (WIPO July 5, 2000). Having failed to respond to Complainant’s prima facia showing, this Panelist concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name.

Complainant has continuously done financial business under the HOUSEHOLD mark and has established a web site identified by the domain name householdloan.com. Respondent’s purposeful registration of householdloans.com necessarily suggests registration in bad faith. See Household International, Inc. v. Cyntom Enterprises, FA95784 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 7, 2000) ("Just as the employment of a well-known business name for no particularly good reason undermines any claim to legitimate interest, so it may also support an inference of a bad-faith attempt to use the name to harass or exploit its legitimate owner…Respondent, if he ever was serious in the registration of this domain name, must have relied on the good chance he would attract [Complainant’s] customers").

Respondent has asserted no good faith purpose for registration of a domain name so confusingly similar to Complainant’s own domain name and federally registered marks. In addition, Respondent has been passively holding the domain name for over a year, and has made no showing of intent us use the domain name in a bona fide offering of goods or services. These facts leave the Panelist to conclude that Respondent has no good faith reason to continue to passively hold a domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks and own domain name. See Hewlett-Packard Company v. Greg Martineau, FA 95359 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the Respondent’s failure to submit an assertion of good faith intent to use the domain name, in addition to the passive holding of the domain name, reveal that the Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith).

Having failed to provide any evidence to the contrary, the Panelist finds that the evidence indicates Respondent registered and, by passively holding a domain name so likely to cause consumer confusion, is using the domain name in bad faith. See Reuters Ltd. v. Teletrust IPR Ltd, D2000-0471 (WIPO Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the Complainant demonstrated bad faith where the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s famous mark when registering the domain name as well as aware of the deception and confusion that would inevitably follow if he used the domain names).

Having satisfied all three ICANN Policy elements, the Panelist determines that the requested relief shall be granted.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the domain name householdloans.com be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.