{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101048",
    "time_of_filling": "2015-09-10 10:36:53",
    "domain_names": [
        "4finance.biz"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "AS \"4finance\""
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Zvērinātu advokātu birojs \"Vilgerts\"",
    "respondent": [
        "4Finance Limited"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a part of 4finance group (“group”). Established in 2008, 4finance is one of the largest online and mobile consumer lending groups in Europe, with its headquarters in Latvia. Operating in 10 European countries and expanding outside the continent, it has over 1500 permanent employees in total, 4 million of registered customers, and over EUR 2.5 billion in single payment and instalment loans issued to date. The group’s holding company 4finance Holding S.A. has been rated by Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s.\r\n\r\nOn 15 February 2012, the group established a UK subsidiary 4finance Limited, which changed its name to V7 Limited due to restructuring and ownership changes on 7 May 2015. \r\n\r\nOn 1 September 2014 (this date has been consulted with  https:\/\/beta.companieshouse.gov.uk\/company\/FC032153, the claimant  provides slightly different date), the group registered SIA 4finance IT branch in the UK.\r\n\r\nThe group operates under the corporate brand name “4finance”. For this purpose the Complainant is an owner of a domain name <4finance.com> registered on 26 January 2006, which is used as the group’s official website. In 2012 and 2013 the Complainant has registered national figurative and word trademarks for “4finance” with the Latvian Patent Office as well as a figurative “4finance” Community trade mark (for details see “Identification of Rights“). \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <4finance.biz> was registered on 13 December 2014 and is held by the Respondent. The Respondent is a private company registered in England and Wales established on 16 June 2015. The disputed domain name has been used to offer, inter alia, investments opportunity to earn 2.6-3% daily for 90 business days depending on the investment size. ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided proceedings which relate to the disputed domain names. ",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nDOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL AND CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO THE PROTECTED MARK\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the domain name <4finance.biz> is identical to the Complainant’s trademarks, using the identical trademark denomination and adding the generic top level domain identifier “.biz” at the end. Such a generic identifier does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trade mark.\r\n\r\nFurther, the Respondent uses the disputed domain name for services under the same category of services - financial services - for which the Complainant's trademarks are registered, which constitutes a presumption of likelihood of confusion. In addition, the Respondent registered its company address at the premises of Complainant´s SIA 4finance IT branch in UK, which also causes confusion on the part of the Complainant’s and 4finance group’s business partners.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant was recently successful in enforcing its rights in the “4finance” trademark against Respondent, when, following Complainant’s trade mark violation reports, Facebook disabled Respondent’s Facebook page in September 2015.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN THE DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n(i)\tthe Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor does it holds any trade mark registrations or has any other intellectual property rights in the “4finance” denomination;\r\n\r\n(ii)\tthe Respondent has not been licensed, contracted or granted authorisation by the Complainant to register and use the disputed domain name;\r\n\r\n(iii)\tthe Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with bona fide offering of goods or services nor has it been used for any legitimate or non-commercial purposes. By using the domain name identical to the Complainant’s trade mark, the Respondent clearly attempted to divert traffic intended for the Complainant's website to its own for commercial gain.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to offer so-called “high-yield investment services”, typically associated with fraudulent investment operations in a Ponzi-like schemes. Such use is incompatible with Complainant’s image, having damaging effect on the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\n\r\nDOMAIN NAME HAS BEEN REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to disrupt the professional activities of Complainant and Respondent’s actions in the UK could potentially be criminally actionable as fraud by false representation under Article 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, which is now being investigated.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant does not find the following facts to be coincidental:\r\n\r\n(i)\tThe Respondent’s company name is identical to the previous company name of V7 Limited (i.e. 4finance Limited,  before it has been renamed), an affiliated company of the 4finance group; \r\n\r\n(ii)\tThe Respondent was incorporated in England and Wales on 16 June 2015, which is only 40 days after V7 Limited changed its initial company name \r\n\r\n(iii)\tThe Respondent´s company has the same registered address as V7 Limited and SIA 4finance IT branch in UK. The Respondent also claims on its website that customers can visit its office at that address. According to the Complainant’s investigation though the Respondent has no physical premises at the mentioned address. \r\n\r\n(iv)\tThe Complainant has never had any connection with Respondent or its appointed director John Trevor Newham;\r\nGiven the above, the Complainant states that the Respondent most likely knew about the rights of Complainant and intended to attract customers by taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character and reputation of the well-known “4finance” trade mark, inter alia, by diverting web traffic intended for the Complainant's website to its own for commercial gain.\r\n\r\nAs of the date of submission of this Complaint, the Respondent has not replied to the cease and desist letter sent to 4Finance Limited by post and email on 24 August 2015. On the other hand, the Respondent acknowledged the takedown of its Facebook content by removing the Facebook button from the disputed domain. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has presented to the Panel the following evidence, which has been assessed by the Panel:\r\n\r\n1)\tVarious information on the Complainant´s business activities \r\n2)\tVarious certificates on incorporation of companies, name changes and registrations\r\n3)\tExcerpts from OHIM and Latvian Patent Office databases for trademarks\r\n4)\tScreenshots of Respondent´s website and WHOIS database \r\n5)\tEvidence regarding enforcement of Complainant´s rights on Facebook \r\n6)\tCease and Desist Letter sent to Respondent\r\n7)\tVarious evidence supporting additional arguments. \r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\nThe Respondent has not provided any response to the complaint.",
    "rights": "The Panel concluded that the disputed domain name is identical to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP” or “Policy”).\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy.\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy.\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".",
    "procedural_factors": "The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "JUDr. Jiří Čermák"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2015-10-22 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registered holder of the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n(i) \t4finance (figurative), Community Trade Mark, filing date 22 February 2013, registration date 29 October 2013, trademark no. 011598018, registered for services in class 36 including insurance, financial affairs, monetary affairs; real estate affairs;\r\n\r\n(ii) \t4finance (figurative), Latvian national trade mark, filing date 10 December 2012, registration date 20 June 2013, trademark no. M 66 158, registered for services in class 36 including financial affairs, monetary affairs;\r\n\r\n(iii) \t4finance (word) Latvian national trade mark, filing date 10 December 2012, registration date 20 July 2013, trademark no. M 66 277, registered for services in class 36 including financial affairs, monetary affairs.\r\n\r\nAll such trademarks are herein collectively referred to as “Complainant's trademarks”.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant owns a registered domain name 4finance.com, which is used for the official Complainant’s website.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "4FINANCE.BIZ": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}