Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

Complainant is Dollar Financial Group, Inc., Berwyn, PA, USA ("Complainant") represented by Hilary B. Miller. Respondent is Robert Wells, Gastonia, NC, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "cashtopayday.com" registered with Innerwise.

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

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on March 1, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 2, 2001.

On March 2, 2001, Innerwise confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "cashtopayday.com" is registered with Innerwise and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Innerwise has verified that Respondent is bound by the Innerwise registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On March 5, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 26, 2001 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@cashtopayday.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 March 29, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a one member Panel, the Forum appointed the Hon. James A. Carmody 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 Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "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 Respondent.

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

A. Complainant alleges the following:

B. Respondent

Respondent has not submitted a response in this matter.

Complainant, Dollar Financial Group, Inc., is a New York corporation (formerly known as "Monetary Management Corporation") and is the largest national originator of small consumer "payday loans," using the CASH ‘TIL PAYDAY name and mark. Complainant’s mark is displayed at over 400 retail locations nationwide in various "logographic" forms as well as assorted web site locations worldwide. Since 1995, Complainant has invested millions of dollars in advertising and promotion of its financial services.

Respondent, Robert Wells, registered the disputed domain name on or about February 20, 2001. To date, Respondent has made no use of the disputed domain name.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules.

Paragraph 4(a) of the 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.

Complainant’s rights are evidenced by its registered mark, CASH ‘TIL PAYDAY.

Respondent’s domain name, cashtopayday.com, is photetically similar, and therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-established mark. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Cupcake City, FA 93562 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 7, 2000) (finding that a domain name which is phonetically identical to Complainant’s mark satisfies ¶ 4(a)(i) of the Policy); see also Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Indus. Sales Corp., FA 95856 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that confusion would result when Internet users, intending to access Complainant’s web site, think that an affiliation of some sort exists between the Complainant and the Respondent, when in fact, no such relationship would exist).

Complainant has shown Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor is Respondent using the domain name for a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use. See Broadcom Corp. v Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use).

In addition, Respondent asserted no rights or legitimate interests in regard to the disputed domain name; therefore, the Panel is free to conclude Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See Boeing Co. v. Bressi, D2000-1164 (WIPO Oct. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the Respondent has advanced no basis on which the Panel could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names and no use of the domain names has been proven); see also Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that "Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the Domain Names").

The evidence supports the conclusion that the Respondent has passively held the domain name since its registration, which demonstrates bad faith. See Alitalia –Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v. Colour Digital, D2000-1260 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent made no use of the domain name in question and there are no other indications that the Respondent could have registered and used the domain name in question for any non-infringing purpose); see also DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp. D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

Moreover, given Complainant’s high profile presence in the financial community, Respondent knew or reasonably should have known of Complainant’s mark prior to registering the disputed domain name. See Reuters Ltd. v. Teletrust IPR Ltd., D2000-0471 (WIPO Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the Respondent 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); see also Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (finding that in determining if a domain name has been registered in bad faith, the Panel must look at the "totality of circumstances").

Finally, it is apparent that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to its web site, or other online location, via a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s well-established mark. See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that given the similarity of the Complainant’s marks with the domain name, consumers will presume the domain name is affiliated with the Complainant …the Respondent is attracting Internet users to a web site, for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, or endorsement of the Respondent’s web site).

Thus, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

Having established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be and is hereby granted.

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