2233 Paradise Road LLC d/b/a Cash Factory USA v Kapom Develop

WIPO Case No. D2025-2306

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

2233 Paradise Road LLC d/b/a Cash Factory USA v. Kapom Develop,
KapomDev

Case No. D2025-2306

1. The Parties

The Complainant is 2233 Paradise Road LLC d/b/a Cash Factory USA, United States of America (“United

States”), internally represented.

The Respondent is Kapom Develop, KapomDev, Thailand.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <cashfactoryusa.info> is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 12, 2025. On June 13, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 16, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp.) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 17, 2025 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amendment to the Complaint on June 17, 2025.

The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisf ied 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 notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 19, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 9, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s default on July 11, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on July 18, 2025. The Panel f inds 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a first-party lender of short-term, payday, and installment loans in the United States of
America.

The Complainant conducts business online, using its website “ as its official client- facing website.

The Complainant is the owner of United States Trademark Registration No. 5006481 for CASH FACTORY USA, covering financial services including short-term loans. The trademark was filed on November 4, 2015, and registered on July 26, 2016.

The disputed domain name was registered on November 29, 2020. It previously resolved to a website featuring content that falsely suggested an affiliation with the Complainant’s services including the use of its trademark within the website. The site displayed the phrase: “Cash Factory USA – quickly access to cash for everyone. Getting a fast loan online to save yourself both time and money” and included interactive options for both new and returning customers. There was a copyright notice on the website “© Copyright Cash Factory USA. All Rights Reserved”. The domain name is currently inactive.

5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following elements with respect to each disputed domain name:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii)       the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii)      the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The burden of proof of each element is borne by the Complainant. The Respondent’s default does not by itself mean that the Complainant is deemed to have prevailed. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3.

page 3

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is of ten primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity like impersonation of the
Complainant can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section

2.13.1.

The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

In the present case, the Panel notes that:

- The Complainant has been using the trademark since at least 2015;

- The Respondent registered the disputed domain name only in 2020;

- The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant trademark with the addition of the “.info”
generic Top-Level Domain.

- The Respondent is defaulted; and

- The disputed domain name resolved to a website featuring content that falsely presented itself as
“Cash Factory USA”.

page 4

The Panel f inds bad faith where the Respondent registered a domain name identical to the Complainant’s CASH FACTORY USA mark and populated it with content directly related to the products and services of fered under that trademark, without any disclaimer and in a manner likely to cause confusion among Internet users.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here a claimed impersonation of the Complainant constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel f inds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

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 <cashfactoryusa.info> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Pablo A. Palazzi/
Pablo A. Palazzi
Sole Panelist
Date: August 1, 2025.