WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

TTT Moneycorp Limited v. Contact Privacy Inc., Customer 0130467102 / Justine Assal, Orb Marketing Solutions

Case No. D2017-0784

1. The Parties

The Complainant is TTT Moneycorp Limited of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("United Kingdom"), represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc., Customer 0130467102 of Toronto, Ontario, Canada / Justine Assal, Orb Marketing Solutions of Orlando, Florida, United States of America ("United States"), represented by Jeffrey Ainsworth, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <moneycorpcostadelsol.com> is registered with Tucows Inc. (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on April 19, 2017. On April 20, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 20, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 26, 2017 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 27, 2017.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 5, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 25, 2017. The Center received informal email communications from the Respondent on May 10, 2017 and May 26, 2017. The Center notified the Parties of the commencement of the Panel Appointment process on May 26, 2017.

The Center appointed Sir Ian Barker as the sole panelist in this matter on May 31, 2017. 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.

On June 13, 2017, the Center received from the Complainant's representative a document signed by both parties and dated June 12, 2017 whereby the Respondent agreed to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant and the Complainant agreed to forego any legal claims against the Respondent arising out of this dispute.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a United Kingdom company which has traded under the name of "Money Corp" offering foreign exchanges and bureau de change services to individual and corporate customers. It has been in the financial services industry since 1979 when it was licensed to operate bureaux de change in London.

The Complainant operates in several countries – especially at airports. It competes competitively with banks and offers bureaux de change, commercial foreign exchange and wholesale banknotes, trading under the Money Corp brand. Since 1988, it has operated a website "www.moneycorp.com" in several different languages including Spanish. It has promoted its MONEYCORP brand worldwide.

The Complainant's business has grown over recent years and its 2014 gross profit was EUR 147 million. In 2014, it carried out 7.2 million transactions and dealt with 90 different currencies.

The Complainant owns the following trademarks:

The disputed domain name was registered on February 27, 2012. The Complainant has an office and carries on business in Costa Del Sol, Spain.

The Complainant sent a "cease and desist" letter to the Respondent on September 2, 2016 with a reminder email on September 26, 2016. No response was received.

Before notice of the Complainant's intent to take legal action, the disputed domain name resolved to the Complainant's own website and purported to be associated with the Complainant. Such content has now been removed. The current content of the disputed domain name features an error message warning of malware. The Complainant gave the Respondent no authority to reflect its trademarks in a disputed domain name.

Previous panels have recognized the value of the Complainant's mark and how specific it is to the Complainant's services.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.

The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the trademark with the addition of the name of a well‑known Spanish tourist town. The addition of the name of a country or city does not present user confusion since it might be thought that the domain refers to the Complainant's rights or services in that city.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. None of the situations in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy applies to the Respondent.

The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent must have known of the fame and strength of the Complainant's mark by virtue of the Complainant's extensive involvement in the financial services industry. Because the Complainant has an office in Costa del Sol, it is clear that the Respondent must have known about the Complainant's business. Therefore, the Respondent is trading upon the Complainant's goodwill and reputation.

The Respondent's interception of traffic intended for the Complainant is evidence of bad faith use by the adoption of a confusingly similar domain name.

The error message on that website warning of malware is also bad faith use.

B. Respondent

The Respondent made no response to the Complaint.

6. Consent to Transfer

On June 13, 2017, the Center received from the Complainant's representative a document signed by both parties and dated June 12, 2017 whereby the Respondent agreed to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant and the Complainant agreed to forego any legal claims against the Respondent arising out of this dispute. The settlement agreement was not in the usual form that the Center typically requires to terminate a proceeding. Nevertheless, the intentions of the parties appear quite clearly from the document.

Following the appointment of a Panel, a request to terminate the proceedings in such circumstances is in the discretion of the Panel in accordance with paragraph 17 of the Rules. In the present case, the Panel sees no ground to proceed to a substantive decision and therefore orders that the disputed domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant, thus giving effect to the agreement of the parties

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <moneycorpcostadelsol.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Sir Ian Barker
Sole Panelist
Date: June 19, 2017