Mastercard Prepaid Management Services Limited v Perfect Privacy, LLC /

WIPO Case No. D2022-1313

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Mastercard Prepaid Management Services Limited v. Perfect Privacy, LLC /
Milen Radumilo

Case No. D2022-1313

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Mastercard Prepaid Management Services Limited, United Kingdom, represented by

Dechert, United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Perfect Privacy, LLC, United States of America (“United States”) / Milen Radumilo,

Romania.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <cashpassportcardlogin.com> is registered with SNAPNAMES 89, LLC (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 12, 2022. On April 12, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 19, 2022, 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 19, 2022 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 20, 2022.

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 proceeding commenced on April 21, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 11, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 13, 2022.

page 2

The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on June 9, 2022. 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.

4. Factual Background

A. Complainant

The Complainant is a company incorporated in the United Kingdom, and a provider of prepaid travel card
and related goods and services to customers worldwide, under the trade mark CASH PASSPORT (the

“Trade Mark”).

The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations for the Trade Mark in jurisdictions worldwide,
including United States registration No. 3326139, with a registration date of October 30, 2007; and

European Union Trade Mark registration No. 0949165, with a registration date of October 15, 2007.

The Complainant also provides its goods and services via its website at “

B. Respondent

The Respondent is apparently an individual resident in Romania.

C. The Disputed Domain Name

The disputed domain name was registered on March 5, 2022.

D. Use of the Disputed Domain Name

The disputed domain name is resolved to a parking page with sponsored links relating to travel cards, credit
cards and related goods and services, including links with express references to the Complainant’s Trade

Mark.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.

page 3

The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Trade Mark (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel words “card” and “login”.

Where a relevant trade mark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8).

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:

(i)        before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable

preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in
connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without

intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at
issue.

The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Mark. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden

is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption.

The Respondent has failed to show that he has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain name has been resolved to a parking page with sponsored links relating to prepaid travel cards and related goods and services (the services under which the

Complainant’s Trade Mark has been registered and used), including links with express reference to the
Trade Mark.

There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name; and there has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Given the notoriety of the Complainant and of its Trade Mark in particular in the prepaid travel card field; the distinctiveness of the Trade Mark; the Respondent’s use of a privacy service provided by the Registrar to conceal his identity; and the manner of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name referred to above; the Panel finds, in all the circumstances, that the requisite element of bad faith has been made out pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

page 4

The Panel notes also that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name just four months after the
panelist, on November 22, 2021, ordered the transfer to the Complainant of the domain name
<mycashpassport.com> in WIPO Case No. D2021-3271 involving the same Parties herein.

The evidence demonstrates that the Respondent deliberately targeted the Complainant in registering and using the disputed domain name; and there could be no actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 <cashpassportcardlogin.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Sebastian M.W. Hughes/
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 23, 2022