WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Cash Converters Pty Ltd v. Whios Agent / Profile Group
Case No. D2013-0689
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Cash Converters Pty Ltd of Perth, Western Australia, Australia, represented by Wrays, Australia.
The Respondent is Whois Agent / Profile Group of Wilmington, Delaware, United States of America, self-represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <cashconverters.org> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Name.com LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 15, 2013, naming the Respondent as Whois Agent. On April 15, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 15, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response identifying the “Registrant Name” as Whois Agent and the “Registrant Organization” as Profile Group, with the same address. In the circumstances the Panel will refer to Whois Agent / Profile Group as the “Respondent”.
In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was (for an unrelated reason) administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on April 18, 2013.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or the “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 22, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 12, 2013. The Response was filed with the Center by Profile Group on May 12, 2013.
The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on May 22, 2013. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
The Complainant submitted a supplemental filing to the Center on May 17, 2013. The Respondent submitted a supplemental filing on May 22, 2103. The Panel makes further reference to these supplemental filings below.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant is an Australian private company incorporated in 1988. It provides pawnbroking and related services. It is the owner of various trademark registrations comprising or including the name CASH CONVERTERS dating from 1989.
The Respondent’s legal status is unclear. The Domain Name was registered on March 31, 2008. At the date of the Center’s compliance check (April 22, 2013) the Domain Name resolved to a “directory” website providing links to a variety of businesses including those connected with financial services.
5. Parties’ Contentions
The Complainant submits that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy). It exhibits evidence of a number of Australian, UK and United States trademark registrations, including for example:
(1) Australian trademark number 818553 for CASH CONVERTERS registered on December 21, 1999 for goods and services including pawnbrokerage and financial services in Class 36.
(2) UK trademark number 1463232 for CASH CONVERTERS registered on October 1, 1993 for goods and services including pawnbroking and valuation services in Class 36.
(3) United States trademark number 74540283 for CASH CONVERTERS (typed drawing) registered on August 6, 1996 for goods and services including pawnbrokerage, appraisal and valuation services in Class 36.
The Complainant states that its pawnbrokerage business was established with one shop in Perth, Western Australia in 1984 and that it now has over 630 shops in 16 countries worldwide. It has built a strong reputation through promotional and marketing activities and operates a franchised retail network listed on both the Australian and London stock exchanges. It has used and will continue to use its registered trademarks for the services for which they are registered. The Complainant refers to its principal website at “www.cashconverters.com.au’’ and states that it operates a variety of other websites, although what it exhibits is a list of 14 domain names including <cashconverters.com> and <cashconverters.net>, some of which resolve to websites that appear to be operated by the Complainant. It also states that it has pursued a number of UDRP complaints, although details of these are not annexed as stated in the Complaint.
As a result of the above matters, the Complainant submits that it has both registered and common law rights in the name and trademark CASH CONVERTERS. It further submits that the Domain Name is identical to that trademark for the purposes of the Policy as the gTLD “.org” should be disregarded. The Complainant comments that the gTLD “.org” is commonly used by not-for-profit organizations, but states that this does not prevent the Domain Name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy). In this regard, the Complainant contends that it has never authorised the Respondent to use or register any domain name comprising its CASH CONVERTERS mark, that the Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, and that the Respondent is not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. Nor has the Respondent ever been known by the Domain Name. Its own name is not connected with the Domain Name and an adverse inference should be drawn from the fact that it used a privacy service to conceal its true identity.
The Complainant exhibits a screen-shot of the website to which the Domain name resolves (dated May 4, 2013) which contains ten links described as “sponsored listings”. These relate among other matters to domain name services, loan and credit services and also include a link to a site at “www.chineselovelinks.com” with the statement “Date Sexy Chinese Women”. The Complainant asserts that this is hardly suggestive of a not-for-profit organization. The Complainant states that the links to pawnbroking and payday loan services are directly competitive with the services which the Complainant itself provides.
The Complainant submits that the mere registration of the Domain Name does not establish rights or legitimate interests for the purposes of the Policy. Nor is the Respondent’s actual use of the Domain Name legitimate. On the contrary, the Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the CASH CONVERTERS trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). The Domain Name resolves to a “landing” site operated by Sedo.com which includes sponsored links and provides “pay-per-click” revenue for the Respondent. The name CASH CONVERTERS does not constitute a common phrase, it is highly unlikely that the Respondent selected it randomly, and it has no value apart from its association with the Complainant. Accordingly, the Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in order to capitalize on the Complainant’s goodwill and to take unfair advantage of its CASH CONVERTERS mark.
The Complainant submits that the Domain Name was registered and has been used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy). In this regard the Complainant relies on similar factual matters and submissions as in the case of “rights and legitimate interests”, but adds that the Domain Name is so obviously connected with the Complainant’s trademark CASH CONVERTERS that bad faith should be inferred for that reason also (Realtime Forex SA v. Rhone Consultants SA, WIPO Case No. D2006-0089).
The Complainant also submits that the precise purpose of the Respondent’s website is irrelevant because by the time Internet users arrive there they have already been confused into thinking they are on their way to the Complainant’s website (Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Limited v. Dejan Macesic, WIPO Case No. D2000-1698).
The Complainant submits that the Respondent must have known, or ought to have known, of the Complainant’s CASH CONVERTERS mark. The mark had been in use for 26 years before the Domain Name was registered and a Google search would have immediately revealed the Complainant’s trademark rights. The lack of any good faith attempt to ascertain whether or not the Domain Name would infringe any other party’s rights may itself be evidence of bad faith (e.g. Mobile Communication Service Inc, v. WebReg RN, WIPO Case No. D2005-1304).
The Complainant requests a transfer of the Domain Name.
The Respondent states that it “takes active measures to avoid its attainment and/or retention of registrations of domain names that may infringe third party rights and exercises prompt due diligence when or if it is made aware that a domain name for which it is the registered name holder may violate this policy”.
The Respondent states that it was not aware that the Domain Name allegedly infringed any rights, or of the Complainant’s concerns, until it received the present Complaint. In particular, it did not receive any prior correspondence from the Complainant and, had it done so, would have addressed its concerns.
The Respondent states that, upon receipt of the Complaint, it immediately wrote to the Complainant’s representatives stating that, while it did not agree with any of the allegations set forth in the Complaint, it was nonetheless willing to transfer the Domain Name at no cost to the Complainant, solely for the purpose of avoiding the burden, expense and uncertainty associated with filing a formal Response challenging the Complaint. The Respondent exhibits a copy of its letter dated May 16, 2013 to this effect, and also the Complainant’s representatives’ reply dated May 16, 2013, stating: “We have informed our client of your offer to transfer the domain name in dispute. Our client rejects your offer.” The Respondent states that a subsequent repetition of its offer was simply ignored.
The Respondent submits that, while it has acted in the utmost good faith since the commencement of the dispute, the Complainant has refused to cooperate and has offered no explanation for its refusal.
The Respondent submits that, where a complainant seeks a transfer of a domain name and the respondent agrees to that transfer, there is ample authority that a Panel may simply order the transfer without a review of the facts or merits of the case. The Respondent cites The Cartoon Network LP, LLP v. Mike Morgan, WIPO Case No. D2005-1132:
“Where the Complainant has sought transfer of a disputed domain name, and the Respondent consents to transfer, then pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules the Panel can proceed immediately to make an order for transfer. This is clearly the most expeditious course.”
The Respondent also cites Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port, WIPO Case No. D2000-0207:
“Because Respondent has consented to the relief requested by Complainant, it is not necessary to review the facts supporting the claim. I am left to decide the appropriate procedure to conclude the case in a situation not directly addressed by the Rules. Several provisions provide guidance. Rule 10(a) gives the panel the discretion to conduct the proceeding in such manner as it deems appropriate under the Policy and the Rules. Rule 10(c) requires the Panel to "ensure that the proceeding takes place with due expedition." Rule 12 permits the Panel to require further statements from the parties. Rule 17 requires the Panel to terminate the proceeding when the parties have agreed to a settlement.”
The Respondent cites additional UDRP cases in support of its position and submits that the Panel should dismiss the present Complaint in view of the Respondent having proceeded only in good faith. It states that upon such dismissal, the Respondent will immediately transfer the Domain Name to the Complainant. Alternatively, the Respondent submits that the Panel should refrain from making any finding of “bad faith” against the Respondent and should simply order the transfer of the Domain Name.
C. Complainant’s Supplementary Filing
The Complainant submitted a supplementary filing in reply to the Response. While the Rules do not expressly provide for supplementary filings, Rule 10(a) states that the Panel shall conduct the administrative proceeding in such manner as it considers appropriate in accordance with the Policy and the Rules, and Rule 10(b) states that in all cases the Panel shall ensure that the parties are treated with equality and that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case. It is generally accepted that these Rules give the Panel a discretion to admit or refuse any supplementary filings according to the particular circumstances of each case.
In this case, the Response does not directly address the submissions made in the Complaint, but raises a line of argument that, in the view of the Panel, it would not be reasonable to expect the Complainant to have anticipated in the Complaint. For that reason, the Panel considers it entirely appropriate that the Complainant should be given an opportunity to reply to that line of argument by way of a supplementary filing.
In its supplementary filing, the Complainant objects to the correspondence between the Respondent and the Complainant’s representatives being put in evidence. It states that these are privileged communications which included an offer to compromise one party’s position in the proceedings. Even if they were not expressly stated to be “without prejudice”, they cannot be put in evidence without the Complainant’s consent, which the Complainant does not give. The Complainant cites certain English and Australian legal authorities in support of its proposition.
The Complainant addresses the Respondent’s assertion that it did not know the Domain Name infringed the rights of any other party. It states that the Respondent has provided no evidence that the Domain Name was purchased as part of a package, or other explanation for its choice of the Domain Name. The Respondent is bound by the normal rules concerning “wilful blindness” to the registration of domain names that may be infringing.
The Complainant states that it requires a finding that the Respondent acted in bad faith and not merely a transfer of the Domain Name. The Complainant gives three principal reasons:
(1) the Respondent has denied acting in bad faith and has asserted on the contrary that it acted in good faith (Sassybax, LLC v. Texas International Property Associates, WIPO Case No. D2007-1190);
(2) the Complainant has paid for a full determination of the case and is entitled to that determination (e.g. Sanofi Aventis v. Standard Tactics LLC, WIPO Case No. D2007-1909); and
(3) there is a broader interest in a substantive determination where, for example, a respondent has been registering domain names in bulk (e.g. Brownells, Inc v. Texas International Property Associates WIPO Case No. D2007-2011).
With regard to the last matter, the Complainant also refers to Research in Motion Limited v. Privacy Locked LLC / Nat Colicott, WIPO Case No. D2009-0320 and to the opinion of the Panel that:
“… new practices of automated bulk transfers of domain names do necessitate a limited form of constructive knowledge if the Policy is not to fall into disrepute. The Panel believes it appropriate that purchasers of domain names should be taken to have knowledge of (a) what they have purchased and (b) how their domain names are being used. Accordingly, if a domain name, which they have purchased incorporates a third party's trademark of which they are likely to have knowledge, they should be treated as having acquired that domain name knowingly and knowingly to have put the domain name to the use to which it is being put. Were it otherwise, automated bulk transfers of domain names would be the perfect shield for abusive registrations.”
D. Respondent’s Supplementary Filing
Having accepted the Complainant’s supplementary filing, the Panel has also accepted the Respondent’s supplementary filing in the interests of treating the parties with equality.
The Respondent repeats that it has acted in good faith since the commencement of the dispute and that the Complainant has provided no explanation for the refusal of the Respondent’s offers of a transfer, preferring instead to incur the expense of filing a supplementary submission.
The Respondent denies that the correspondence concerning the Respondent’s offer is privileged and should be excluded from the evidence. The Complainant has cited Australian [sic] case law which has no bearing on the matter. Paragraph 10(d) of the Rules provides that it is for a panel to decide the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of any evidence. There has been no agreement between the parties that any settlement communications between the parties should be excluded or kept confidential (Pick ‘N Pay Retailers (Proprietary) Limited v. Dependable Internet LLC, WIPO Case No. D2009-0499). The Respondent also cites paragraph 3.6 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), which refers to the consensus view of panelists that evidence of settlement discussions is generally admissible.
The Respondent submits that the purpose of the Policy is to resolve disputes, not to punish domain name registrants or deter them from legitimately registering domain names. With regard to the Complainant’s three stated reasons for requiring a substantive determination:
(1) the Respondent confirms that it has made no admission of bad faith: its policy is not to hold domain names in derogation of the rights of others and to take corrective action where it is notified of a dispute;
(2) the Policy is intended to provide a fast and efficient method of resolving disputes and it would be entirely within the spirit of the Policy, and would not subvert its purpose, for the Panel to order a simple transfer in circumstances where both parties have agreed to that remedy;
(3) at no time has the Respondent stated or implied that it acquired the Domain Name as part of any bulk purchase of names as the Complainant suggests.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Allegedly Privileged Communications
The Panel must first consider the Complainant’s submission that the correspondence between the Respondent and itself, offering a transfer of the Domain Name, should be excluded from the evidence in the case on the grounds of privilege. The Panel rejects that submission. The Policy comprises a contractual process which proceeds on its own terms and is not subject to the strict rules of evidence applicable to, e.g., the English or Australian national judicial systems. Paragraph 10(d) of the Rules states that the Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence. The parties did not agree that correspondence in the nature of settlement communications should be excluded from the evidence and the Panel can see no other basis for that evidence to be excluded in this case.
B. Request for Simple Transfer
The Panel turns next to the Respondent’s submission that, since the Respondent has agreed to transfer the Domain Name to the Complainant, which is the remedy sought by the Complainant, the Panel should either dismiss the Complaint or order a transfer of the Domain Name without making any substantive determination of the case and, in particular, any finding that the Respondent acted in bad faith.
“Where the parties to a UDRP dispute have not succeeded in settling a case between themselves prior to the rendering of a panel decision, but the respondent has given its unilateral and unambiguous consent on the record to the remedy sought by the complainant, a panel may at its discretion order transfer (or cancellation) of the domain name on that basis alone. Some panels have done so on the basis of giving effect to party agreement as to outcome (sometimes, where the parties so request, on a no-fault basis), with a few also by deeming such consent to satisfy the requirement of the three elements of the UDRP (sometimes by virtue of deemed admission). Some panels have declined to grant a remedy solely on the basis of the respondent's consent, but rather elected to proceed to a substantive determination of the merits; for example, because the panel needs to be certain that the complainant has shown that it possesses relevant trademark rights, or because there is ambiguity as to the genuineness of the respondent's consent, or because the respondent has not expressly admitted bad faith, or because the panel finds there is a conduct or other aspect to the proceedings which warrants a full determination on the record, or because the panel finds that the complainant has not agreed to a consent decision and the complainant is entitled to the decision for which it has paid in filing its complaint, or because the panel finds a broader interest in reaching and recording a substantive determination (e.g. in connection with patterns of conduct under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the UDRP).”
The Panel has considered the views of the Panels in, e.g. The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan, WIPO Case No. D2005-1132 and Infonxx. Inc v. Lou Kerner, WildSites.com, WIPO Case No. D2008-0434 and in other cases that, where a respondent has given its unilateral and unambiguous consent to the remedy sought by the complainant, then the most expeditious course is to order that remedy without an examination of the merits of the case. The basis for this approach appears to the provision in paragraph 10(a) of the Rules that “the Panel shall conduct the administrative proceeding in such manner as it considers appropriate in accordance with the Policy and these Rules”.
The Panel does not share the view that paragraph 10(a) of the Rules enables it to order a transfer of the Domain Name without any substantive consideration of the merits of the case. The powers of the Panel to order the transfer of a domain name are circumscribed by the terms of the Policy and the Rules. The Policy makes no provision for an order for transfer other than in accordance with paragraph 4(a), which requires the complainant in an administrative proceeding to prove that each of the following three elements is present:
(i) that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 10(a) of the Rules permits the Panel to conduct the administrative proceeding “in such manner as it considers appropriate”, but only “in accordance with the Policy and these Rules”. Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules also states that a complaint must be decided “in accordance with the Policy and these Rules”. These provisions do not appear to the Panel to enable it to order a transfer in circumstances not contemplated by the Policy, i.e. where each the three elements under paragraph 4(a) has not been established. Certainly there may be cases where the three elements could be deemed to be established without further investigation, e.g. in the case of admissions made by the Respondent, but this is not such a case: in this case the Respondent has stated that it does not agree with any of the allegations contained in the Complaint and expressly denies having acted in bad faith.
While the Panel accepts that it may be in the interests of efficiency simply to order a transfer in cases where the Respondent has consented to that remedy, there are other reasons why that approach may be undesirable. Hypothetically, such a policy could enable a party cynically to register domain names in bad faith, knowing that at worst it would have to relinquish a name without any adverse finding if and when the trademark owner might file an administrative proceeding and pay a fee for the privilege. In any event, it is beyond the remit of the Panel simply to order a transfer in this particular case.
Nor does the Panel accept that the proceeding should be dismissed under paragraph 17 of the Rules. Paragraph 17(a) states: “If, before the Panel's decision, the Parties agree on a settlement, the Panel shall terminate the administrative proceeding.” However, the parties have not agreed on a settlement in this case. While the Respondent has consented to the remedy sought by the Complainant, this does not resolve all of the matters in issue between the parties and the Complainant has not agreed to compromise the dispute on the basis of the Respondent’s consent to transfer.
Accordingly, the Panel will proceed to a substantive determination of the case on the basis of the three elements set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registrations for the trademark CASH CONVERTERS in numerous jurisdictions including Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. It has also made submissions concerning its business activities worldwide since 1984 under the CASH CONVERTERS name. While these submissions are not supported by, e.g. particulars of turnover or substantial extrinsic evidence, they are not disputed by the Respondent (otherwise than by way of its blanket denial) and the Panel finds that the Complainant has also established unregistered rights in the CASH CONVERTERS name. The Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark CASH CONVERTERS but for the space between the words and the gTLD “.org”, neither of which is material. Accordingly, the Complainant has established that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
D. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant submits that it has never authorised the Respondent to use its CASH CONVERTERS mark or to register the Domain Name and that the Respondent has never been commonly known by the Domain Name. It further submits that the Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services and that it has not made legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. On the contrary, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has used the Domain Name misleadingly to divert Internet users to a pay-per-click “landing” website from which the Respondent derives revenues by taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill. The Complainant has provided evidence of the links found on the relevant website, which include pawnbroking and related services which it says are competitive with the Complainant’s own services.
The Panel finds that the Complainant’s submissions give rise to a prima facie case for the Respondent to answer that it has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. However, despite having two bites of the cherry by virtue of its Response and supplementary filing, the Respondent has provided no evidence of any such rights or legitimate interests. While the Respondent has denied generally the Complainant’s allegations in the case and has stated that it “takes active measures to avoid its attainment and/or retention of registrations of domain names that may infringe third party rights”, it provides no reason for its choice of the Domain Name and no evidence that it has any rights or legitimate interests in that name, whether by virtue of the matters set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. Nor (otherwise than by way of its blanket denial) does it dispute the Complainant’s characterization of its use of the Domain Name to misleadingly divert Internet users and take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill.
The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submissions that neither the mere registration of the Domain Name nor the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name in connection with the website described above gives rise to rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant relies on similar factual allegations as in the case of “rights or legitimate interests”. With regard to the Respondent’s domain parking website, it refers in particular to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, which states that it shall be evidence of registration and use in bad faith if:
“by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
The Complainant contends that the term “cash converters” is not a phrase in common usage and that it should be inferred, not least from the Complainant’s longstanding use of the CASH CONVERTERS trademark, that the Respondent deliberately chose the name in order unfairly to profit from the Complainant’s goodwill.
As in the case of “rights or legitimate interests”, the Respondent makes no serious attempt to dispute the Complainant’s allegations. While the Respondent states that it “takes active measures to avoid its attainment and/or retention of registrations of domain names that may infringe third party rights”, it provides no clue as to what these “active measures” may be or as to how the Domain Name came to be registered. Further, while issuing a blanket denial of the Complainant’s allegations, including its allegation of bad faith, the Respondent makes no attempt to explain why it has used the Domain Name in the manner objected to by the Complainant.
In the circumstances, the Panel infers on balance that the Domain Name was registered with the knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and that the Respondent has used it intentionally to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark. In particular, the Panel accepts that the Respondent is seeking to attract to its domain parking website Internet users who are looking for the Complainant’s authorised website. The Panel agrees with the Complainant’s submissions that it makes no difference that Internet users may realize the website is not the Complainant’s once they have reached it, as they will nevertheless have been misled by the “initial interest confusion” engendered by the Domain Name. Furthermore, the Panel also accepts that not only does the website take unfair advantage of the goodwill attaching to the Complainant’s trademark, but it also includes links to providers of services which are directly competitive with those offered by the Complainant.
The Respondent’s protestations that it has acted in good faith since the filing of the Complaint, and that the Complainant has acted unreasonably in rejecting its offer of a transfer of the Domain Name, have no relevance to the questions dictated by the Policy, which relate to the registration and use of the Domain Name. These are questions which the Respondent has elected not to address.
In all the circumstances, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <cashconverters.org> be transferred to the Complainant.
Steven A. Maier
Date: June 5, 2013