{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106154", "time_of_filling": "2024-01-17 10:08:13", "domain_names": [ "clearscoresolutions.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Clear Score Technology Limited" ], "complainant_representative": "Stobbs IP (Stobbs IP)", "respondent": [ "Emile Joseph " ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

Clear Score Technology Limited (the Complainant), is a UK company incorporated in 2014. The Complainant operates as a financial technology business, catering to the UK market and was the UK’s first service providing individuals with free access to their credit score reports which can be found at <\/span>clearscore.com<\/a>. The Complainant has built up significant goodwill in the CLEARSCORE brand, in the UK and other territories in relation to its financial products and services. The Complainant has a significant number of users and partners with over 150 financial institutions around the world. <\/span><\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name <<\/span>clearscoresolutions.com>.<\/span>  <\/span><\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

COMPLAINANT:<\/span>

• The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark<\/span>
<\/span><\/p>\n

According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name <clearscoresolutions.com> is identical or at least confusingly similar to its trademark CLEARSCORE. The trademark is included in its entirety. The Complainant contends that the addition of the generic term “SOLUTIONS” is merely descriptive of the services offered and does not change the overall impression or meaning of the disputed domain name. It is notable that the CLEARSCORE element, which carries the most significant reputation as the ‘parent’ brand, appears at the beginning of the disputed domain name where the average internet users pay the most attention.<\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.COM” is merely a technical requirement, used for domain name registrations. This has been confirmed in numerous UDRP decisions.<\/span><\/p>\n

• The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has never legitimately been known by the name CLEARSCORE at any point in time. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant provides that based on the considerable reputation of the CLEARSCORE brand, there is no credible, believable, or realistic reason for registration or use of the disputed domain name other than to take advantage of the Complainant’s rights and brand reputation. The disputed domain name was registered in 2023. By this point, the Complainant already had rights (both registered and unregistered) in the CLEARSCORE brand, clearly pre-dating the registration of the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to an active website (the “Infringing Website”) which offers for sale and\/or advertises Credit Score services under the CLEARSCORE name.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Infringing Website uses the Complainant’s registered trademark CLEARSCORE, claiming to offer services to consumers to improve their credit scores, financial service information, credit analysis and credit repair services. The services offered by the Infringing Website are almost identical to that of the Complainant’s services under the same CLEARSCORE name and therefore attempts to pass off as the Complainant’s brand.  The Infringing Website has never been authorised by the Complainant.<\/p>\n

Therefore, it is clear that the Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is merely to pass off as the Complainant (and unrelated brands) in order to advertise and sell unofficial services, this shows that they are not using them in relation to a bona fide offering of goods or services. <\/p>\n

• The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith<\/span>

According to the Complainant, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark and is using it in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known trademark CLEARSCORE.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent was aware of the CLEARSCORE brand given the disputed domain name makes use of the Complainant’s registered trademark, clearly referring to CLEARSCORE and displaying content relating to credit scores for which the Complainant is commonly known on the Infringing Website. Given that the Complainant is a well-known market leader in financial services, there is no plausible reason for registering a domain with “clearscore + solutions” other than to target the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover, the Complainant contends<\/span> the addition of the generic term “SOLUTIONS” is merely descriptive of the services offered and does not change the overall impression or meaning of the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant further states that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith by intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Infringing Website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's registered trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Infringing Website under Policy, Paragraph 4(b)(iv).<\/span>

The Complainant states that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to drive internet traffic to the Infringing Website in order to pass off as the Complainant to advertise unofficial services. Using a trademark to divert traffic to the Respondent’s own website is consistently held by panelists to amount bad faith registration and use under Policy, Paragraph 4(b)(iv).<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant further submits that the Respondent disrupts the Complainant’s business by diverting potential customers to the Infringing Website promoting unofficial services. Using a confusingly similar domain name in a manner disruptive of a Complainant’s business by trading upon the goodwill of a Complainant for the commercial gain evinces bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iii) and (v) of the Policy. <\/span><\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

In the Response to the Complaint, the Respondent provides that while acknowledging that the Complainant may have rights to a similar trademark, the disputed domain name was registered in good faith and has been used in a legitimate manner.<\/p>\n

According to the Respondent, the disputed domain name was registered with the intention of utilizing it for projects that align with the generic nature of the scope of the Respondent's business. At the time of registration, the Respondent conducted thorough research to ensure that the disputed domain name was available and not in violation of any existing trademarks. Additionally, the content hosted on the website associated with the disputed domain name is relevant to its generic meaning and does not infringe upon the Complainant's trademark rights.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Respondent claims that it is important to consider the principles of fair use and the rights of individuals to register domain names that correspond to generic terms. The term \"clearscoresolutions.com\" is descriptive and commonly used in various contexts across the internet. Therefore, the registration and use of the disputed domain name fall within the bounds of fair competition and do not constitute bad faith.<\/p>\n

COMPLAINANT:<\/span><\/p>\n

In the Reply to the Response, the Complainant submits that the Complainant disputes the validity of the Respondent’s claim that the disputed domain name was registered in good faith and that thorough research had been conducted. The Complainant notes that the Respondent has not in fact provided any evidence to support this claim in their Response. The Complainant on the other hand has already submitted in the Complaint that a simple Google Search of the Complainant’s business at the time of registration and six months prior would have returned results of the Complainant’s business.<\/p>\n

The Complainant maintains that the Respondent’s use of the CLEARSCORE trademark to advertise and promote highly similar services indicates that more likely than not, the Respondent had prior knowledge of the Complainant’s rights at the time of registering the disputed domain name. <\/p>\n

The Complainant further avers that the disputed domain name is not generic nor is the content hosted on the content associated with the disputed domain name. Searches on popular online dictionaries such as Oxford English Dictionary and Cambridge Dictionary infer that ‘ClearScore’ does not have a dictionary defined meaning. A Google Search of ‘ClearScore definition’ directs users to the Complainant’s Wikipedia page, information relating to the Complainant and online articles relating to the Complainant’s business. It is therefore implausible that the term is generic and is descriptive of credit score services but has been associated with that of the Complainant’s business and reputation. There is no indication that ‘CLEARSCORE’ is descriptive and commonly used in various contexts across the internet.<\/p>\n

According to the Complainant, it appears unlikely that it is a mere coincidence that the Respondent has registered a disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark, business name and has created content that is highly similar to the Complainant’s business.<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "

Preliminary issues – the Complainant’s unsosolicied supplemental filing<\/u><\/p>\n

On February 20, 2024, after the Panel appointment, the Complainant made an unsolicited supplemental filing. This filing contains contentions regarding the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Paragraph 10 of the Rules provides panels with the authority to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality, and weight of the evidence, and also to conduct the proceedings with due expedition.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Accordingly, unsolicited supplemental filings are generally discouraged, unless specifically requested by the panel, pursuant to its general powers under paragraph 12 of the Rules. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.6.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Having reviewed the Complainant’s unsolicited supplemental filing in this case, the Panel does not consider that the filing contains significant material which could not have been included in the Complainant’s original filing, or material which is of such importance that it is liable to be critical to the outcome of the case. In the<\/p>\n

circumstances, the Panel determines that the Complainant’s unsolicited supplemental filing shall not be admissible in this proceeding.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 For all the reasons above, 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.<\/span><\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Barbora Donathová" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-02-29 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant states and provides evidence to support that it is the owner of many CLEARSCORE trademark registrations around the world. The Complainant’s registered rights date back to 2015, which pre-dates the registration of the disputed domain name by 8 years. This portfolio of registered trademark rights very clearly demonstrates that the Complainant enjoys rights in the CLEARSCORE trademark within the UK, US and on a global reach.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant is active on internet under a domain name clearscore.com. The Complainant is also active on social media, where it advertises its brand under the @CLEARSCORE handle, which has generated a notable level of endorsement and internet user following, including Facebook, Instagram or Twitter.<\/span>
<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <clearscoresolutions.com> was registered on June 7, 2023.<\/span><\/p>", "decision_domains": { "clearscoresolutions.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }