Citigroup Inc. v. Wangshengfeng
Claim Number: FA1912001874243
Complainant is Citigroup Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Rita Weeks of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, USA. Respondent is Wangshengfeng (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <huaqijr.com>(‘the Domain Name’), registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 6, 2019; the Forum received payment on December 6, 2019.
On December 17, 2019, Xin Net Technology Corporation confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <huaqijr.com> domain name is registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Xin Net Technology Corporation has verified that Respondent is bound by the Xin Net Technology Corporation registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On December 26, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 15, 2020 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@huaqijr.com. Also on December 26, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 20, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the CITI family of trade marks for financial services. It owns registrations in China as of 1993 for the transliteration of its CITI mark HUA QI.
The Domain Name registered in 2019 incorporates the transliteration of the CITI mark HUA QI with the generic term “jr” meaning junior and the gTLD “.com” neither of which prevent confusing similarity.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorised by the Complainant.
The Domain Name was originally pointed to an e-commerce website featuring the Complainant’s CITI marks and its logo. It now points to a gambling platform. These are not bona fide offering of goods or services and are commercial so are not non commercial legitimate or fair use.
The Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith, being unauthorised appropriation of the Complainant’s well known mark.
The fact that the Domain Name was pointed to a site containing the Complainant’s CITI marks and logo shows that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its rights and business. Pointing the Domain Name to a commercial site that used the Complainant’s logo would have confused Internet users for commercial gain, as would the current pointing to a gambling site.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the CITI family of trade marks for financial services. It owns registrations in China as of 1993 for the transliteration of their CITI mark HUA QI.
The Domain Name registered in 2019 has been pointed to a commercial site containing the Complainant’s CITI mark and logo and, later to a gambling site.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Language of the Registration Agreement
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. After considering the circumstance of the present case, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consist of the Complainant's HUA QI mark (which is registered in China for financial services as of 1993), the generic term “jr” often meaning junior and the gTLD “.com.”
The addition of a generic term and a gTLD does not negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a trade mark contained within it. See Wiluna Holdings LLC v Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan 22, 2016)(Finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).)
A gTLD does not serve to distinguish a domain name from a Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered HUA QI mark.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
The use of the Domain Name is commercial and so cannot be legitimate non commercial or fair use.
The web site formerly attached to the Domain Name used the Complainant's marks to offer commercial services not connected with the Complainant and did not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise services which competed with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services).
Use of a domain name for a commercial gambling platform does not demonstrate rights or legitimate interests envisaged by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Private Registration / Yanhua Wang, D2019-0244 (WIPO April 23, 2019) (use of domain name to operate a website offering online lottery gaming services was not a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name).
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In the opinion of the panelist the use formerly made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent’s site was confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably have believed it was connected to or approved by the Complainant as the Complainant’s CITI mark and logo were used without permission indicating that the Respondent knew about the Complainant and its business. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web sites likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to advertise car dealerships that competed with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of those competing dealerships and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use). See Allianz of AM. Corp v Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website).
Further, use of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation for gambling purposes is an indication of registration and use in bad faith. See Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Ricky K Wight, FA 1772363 (Forum Mar. 19, 2018) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent linked the domain name <skechersdlites.com>, which is identical to the complainant’s mark, to a gambling website).
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(iv) and 4 (b)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <huaqijr.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: January 26, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page