{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104539",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-05-02 09:11:53",
    "domain_names": [
        "lendingclubbank.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "LendingClub Bank, National Association"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "RODENBAUGH LAW",
    "respondent": [
        "Shen Zhong Chao"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant, LendingClub Bank, National Association, was founded in 2006 and is a leading digital marketplace bank based in the United States. The Complainant operates internationally and offers a broad range of financial products and services through a technology-driven platform, designed to help its members pay less when borrowing and earn more when saving. On January 19, 2021, the LendingClub announced that it had acquired a banking company and would conduct business as the Complainant, LendingClub Bank, National Association.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on January 28, 2021, which resolved to an active website offering the disputed domain name for sale.  \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Complainant informed the Panel that the disputed domain name is included in a list of 150 domains subjected to an “in rem” proceeding under the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”) which was filed by the Complainant in the Eastern District of Virginia. The Complainant also informed the Panel that due to the significance of the disputed domain name and the potential for fraud, the Complainant elected to file this UDRP dispute in order to obtain a faster decision. In the event the Panel awards the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant, the Complainant will remove the disputed domain name from the pending ACPA action. \r\n\r\n",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the LENDING CLUB mark on the basis that the disputed domain name which consists of the LENDING CLUB mark, the addition of the descriptive term “bank” and the generic top-level domain name suffix (“gTLD”) “.com” are insufficient to avoid the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its LENDING CLUB mark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also argues that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. In addition, the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor did the Complainant license or authorize the Respondent to use the LENDING CLUB mark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further asserts that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith as the Respondent should have known of the Complainant’s LENDING CLUB mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name.\r\n \r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).",
    "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).",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).",
    "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.\r\n\r\nPreliminary Issue: Language of Proceedings\r\nParagraph 11 of the Rules provides that:\r\n“(a) Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.”\r\nThe language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for the following reasons:\r\n(i)\tRespondent appears to be a serial cybersquatter of English language domain names; \r\n(ii)\tthe disputed domain name website is offered for sale in the English language; and\r\n(iii)\trequiring the Complainant to translate the Complaint would cause unnecessary delays and expense.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding. \r\n\r\nThe Panel cites the following with approval: “Thus, the general rule is that the parties may agree on the language of the administrative proceeding.  In the absence of this agreement, the language of the Registration Agreement shall dictate the language of the proceeding.  However, the Panel has the discretion to decide otherwise having regard to the circumstances of the case.  The Panel’s discretion must be exercised judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties taking into consideration matters such as command of the language, time and costs.  It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her abilities to articulate the arguments for the case.”  (See Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl, WIPO Case No. DCC2006 0004).\r\n\r\nHaving considered the above factors, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding. The Panel agrees that the Respondent appear to be familiar with the English language, taking into account the Respondent’s selection of the English-language trademark and the domain name in dispute. In the absence of an objection by the Respondent, the Panel does not find it procedurally efficient to have the Complainant translate the Complaint and evidence into Chinese.\r\n\r\nPreliminary Issue: UDRP and Court Proceedings\r\n\r\nUnder paragraph 4(k) of the Policy, the UDRP does not bar either party from seeking judicial recourse. Paragraph 18(a) of the UDRP Rules gives the panel discretion to suspend, terminate, or continue a UDRP proceeding where the disputed domain name is also the subject of other pending legal proceedings (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.14). Generally, appointed panels are reluctant to suspend a UDRP case due to concurrent court proceedings, most notably because of the potential for indeterminate delay (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.14.1.). Panels therefore would generally issue a UDRP decision on the merits even in when an overlapping court proceeding are existing, notwithstanding the fact that a UDRP decision would not be binding to the court, the relative expediency of the UDRP versus courts is seen as a benefit to the parties. \r\n\r\nIn the present case, the Respondent did not file a response and did not dispute the jurisdiction of the Panel. In addition, the Panel is also of the view that terminating the case would not be appropriate since it would not affect the court proceedings, which are the subject of another cause of action under ACPA. (See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.14.2). The Panel shall therefore proceed with the decision below.\r\n\r\n\r\n",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Mr. Jonathan Agmon"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-06-13 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademarks worldwide, including but not limited to the following:\r\n\r\n- U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,513,349 for “Lending Club”, registered on October 7, 2008;\r\n\r\n- U.S. Trademark Registration No. 5,470,831 for “LENDINGCLUB”, registered on May 15, 2018;\r\n\r\n- International Registration No. 1387144 for “LendingClub”, registered on September 11, 2017; and\r\n\r\n- Chinese Trademark No. 26701423 for “Len Ding Club”, registered on March 28, 2020. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it also owns the domain name <lendingclub.com> for its primary website and business email address.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "LENDINGCLUBBANK.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}