Dollar Financial Group, Inc v. Same

[Indexed as: Dollar Financial Group, Inc v. Same]
[Indexed as: et al.]

National Arbitration Forum
Administrative Panel Decision

Forum File FA0005000094734
Commenced: 3 May 2000
Judgment: 8 June 2000

Presiding Panelist: Paul A. Dorf

Domain name(s) - Domain name dispute resolution policy - U.S Service mark - U.S. Trademark - Identical - Confusingly similar - Bad faith registration - Bad faith use – Name Safe – Name Reservation – Commercially usable status.

Complainant was registrant of United States service mark and United States trademark LOANMART and of domain names and  Respondent registered the domain names, and 

Held, Names Transferred to Complainant.

The domain names and are identical or confusingly similar to the service mark, trademark and domain names registered and continuously used by the Complainant since not later than September 1, 1997.  Although the domain names are listed in the Dotster, Inc registry under the name of the Respondent, they are non-functional at this time—rather, the name was reserved in what is termed "Name Safe."  Respondent admits that he has no plans to activate the domain names to a commercially usable status and that there has never been any form of commerce associated with the names in question.

It is then clear that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain names and Respondent has demonstrated bad faith in both the registration and use of the mark.

Policies referred to

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, adopted August 26, 1999

Panel Decision referred to

Dorf, Panelist:-

            The above?entitled matter came on for an administrative hearing on June 8,
2000, before Paul A. Dorf, Arbitrator, on the Complaint of Dollar Financial Group,
Inc., represented by Hilary B. Miller, Esq, hereafter “Complainant” against SAME
by its representative, Paul Patterson, hereafter "Respondent." Upon the written
submitted record, the following DECISION is made:


Domain Names:                           and

Domain Name Registrar:                       Dotster, Inc.

Domain Name Registrant:                     Same

Date of Domain Name Registration:      March 28, 2000

Date Complaint Filed:                           May 3, 2000

Response Due Date:                             May 30, 2000

The Complainant filed its complaint with the National Arbitration Forum on
the above?referenced date.  In compliance with the rules, The Forum transferred
the Complaint to the Respondent on May 8, 2000. The Respondent did submit a
response to The Forum within twenty (20) days pursuant to the rules.

That the Respondent registered the domain name with Dotster, Inc, the
entity that is the Registrar of the domain name. By registering its domain name with
said Registrar, Respondent agreed to resolve any dispute regarding its domain
name through ICANN'S Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.


The manner in which the domain name(s) are identical or confusing are set
out herein below:

The Complainant's registered service mark LOAN MART® and its
domain names and  are confusingly similar in that
Respondent has only added the word “the" prior to the mark.

Complainant has been continuously using the mark LOAN MART® in
interstate commerce since not later than September 1, 1997.  The Complainant's
mark was granted registration by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on
September 29, 1998 under serial number 75/342,261 and registration number
2,192,247, for consumer lending services.
On March 28, 2000, Respondent registered his domain names and  In his response, Respondent claims that he
attempted to register the domain names on March 23, 2000, but his credit card
company declined the charge to register the names;  therefore the registration did
not go through until March 28, 2000.  On March 24, 2000, Complainant
registered the domain names and  Even though
Respondent states in his response that the Complainant must have learned of his
attempt to register the domain names through a "watchdog" service, it does not
preclude the fact that the Complainant is the registered owner of the mark LOAN
MART® and  has been using that mark in commerce since not later than
September 1, 1997.

On April 12, 2000, Complainant's counsel sent correspondence to
Respondent regarding the registration of the domain names and making the demand
that Respondent immediately transfer to Complainant without consideration of any
kind, all rights, title and interest in the domain name, to cease and desist from all
commercial activities under Complainant's mark, remove all goods and services
bearing the said marks from sale, remove from public view all signage, advertising,
etc. bearing the Complainant's mrk, and provide an account to Complainant for the
volume of sale which have been achieved under this mark.  

On April 20, 200, Respondent sent correspondence to Complainant's
counsel stating that he did not officially register the names, but rather reserved them
in what is termed "Name Safe."  Under this classification, the names  must be
activated prior to any use, and although they are listed in the registry they are
non?functional at this time.  He also stated that he has no plans to activate the
domain names to a commercially usable status.  Respondent also admits that there
has never been any form of commerce associated with the names in question,
including advertising, sales, etc.


The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and has no
known conflict of interest to serve as the Arbitrator in this proceeding. Having been
duly selected and being impartial, the undersigned makes the following findings and

The undersigned has reviewed all the evidence presented in this case by
both parties and has concluded to believe the facts and circumstances as set forth
by the Complainant.  For that reason, the undersigned decides that:

The domain names as registered by the Respondent are identical or
confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has
rights; and 

the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain
names;  and

the Respondent domain names have been registered and are being used in
bad faith.

It is therefore just, right and proper that the domain names
and  be transferred to the Complainant.


Based upon the above findings and conclusions, and pursuant to Rule 4(i),
it is decided as follows:


Dated: June 8, 2000, by Judge Paul A. Dorf, (ret.), Arbitrator

Domain Name Transferred