Citigroup Inc. v. Amjad Zoabi / United networks ltd / max media
Claim Number: FA2010001918386
Complainant is Citigroup Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James L. Vana of Perkins Coie LLP, Washington. Respondents are Amjad Zoabi / United networks ltd and max media, Israel.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <citigfx.com> and <citi24group.com>, registered with Godaddy.Com, Llc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 26, 2020. The Forum received payment on October 26, 2020.
On October 27, 2020, Godaddy.Com, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <citigfx.com> and <citi24group.com> domain names are registered with Godaddy.Com, Llc and that max media is the current registrant of the <citigfx.com> name and Amjad Zoabi / United networks ltd is the current registrant of the <citi24group.com> name. Godaddy.Com, Llc has verified that Respondents are bound by the Godaddy.Com, Llc registration agreement and have thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On November 2, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 23, 2020 by which Respondents could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondents’ registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@citigfx.com, postmaster@citi24group.com. Also on November 2, 2020, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondents of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondents via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondents’ registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondents, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 30, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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 names be transferred from Respondents to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
Complainant has alleged in its Amended Complaint that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person.
Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder”. Paragraph 1(d) of the Forum's Supplemental Rules defines “The Holder of a Domain Name Registration” as “the single person or entity listed in the registration information, as verified by the Registrar, at the time of commencement” and sub-paragraph 1(d)(i) provides that a Complainant wishing to make an argument for a single Respondent having multiple aliases must comply with Supplemental Rules 4(c) and 17(a)(i).
Complainant asserts that “max media” is an alias of Amjad Zoabi / United networks ltd. on the following grounds:
(i) the Registrar’s verification shows that both “max media” and Amjad Zoabi / United networks ltd use the same phone number;
(ii) Amjad Zoabi is a 50% shareholder of “L.S.A. Max Media International Ltd”, as well as an owner of United Networks Ltd, located in Nazareth, Israel, the location of max media, according to the Registrar’s verification;
(iii) the images, content and contact information previously provided at <CITI24GROUP.COM> are identical to those currently provided at <CITIGFX.COM>; and
(iv) Complainant previously brought a successful UDRP action against Amjad Zoabi in connection with the domain name <CITI24.COM>. The website to which that domain name resolved listed contact information identical to that provided at the currently disputed domain names.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain names <citigfx.com> and <citi24group.com> are registered by the same domain name holder. Henceforth this decision will refer to Amjad Zoabi / United networks ltd / max media as “Respondent”.
A. Complainant
Founded as City Bank of New York in 1812, Complainant, Citigroup, Inc. operates an American multinational bank and financial services corporation. Complainant has rights in the CITI, CITIGROUP, and CITIFX marks through their registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <citigfx.com> and <citi24group.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks.
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <citigfx.com> and <citi24group.com> domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and is not a licensee or authorized user of the CITI, CITIGROUP or CITIFX marks. Respondent attempts to mask his identity using a proxy service, further showing Respondent is not known by the disputed domain names. Moreover, Respondent has not used either domain name to make a bona fide offer of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, <citigfx.com> resolves to a page offering financial services using the CITI24 name, creating a false impression that Complainant is affiliated with the disputed domain name. The <citi24group.com> domain is currently inactive, having previously resolved to a page purporting to offer the same financial services as advertised on the website to which the <citigfx.com> domain name resolves.
Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights to the CITI, CITIGROUP, and CITIFX marks and uses the domain names in bad faith to link to competing services on websites prominently displaying the CITI mark, giving the false impression of association or affiliation with Complainant. Respondent has now registered at least three domain names that infringe on Complainant’s rights to the CITI mark. This pattern of conduct evinces bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
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”).
Complainant has shown that it has rights in the CITI, CITIGROUP and CITIFX marks through their registration with the USPTO, namely CITI – Reg. 1,181,467, registered Dec. 8, 1981; CITIGROUP – Reg. 2,406,753, registered Nov. 21, 2000; and CITIFX – Reg. 2,465,567, registered Jul. 3, 2001.
Respondent’s <citigfx.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITI and CITIFX marks, inserting the letter “g” into the CITIFX mark and adding the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), alternatively, adding the letters “gfx” and the “.com” gTLD to Complainant’s CITI mark. The <citi24group.com> domain name incorporates the CITIGROUP mark, inserting the number “24” and the “.com” gTLD.
Complainant has established this element.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant has provided evidence that its marks are and had become famous many years before the registration of the disputed domain names. This was recognized in Citigroup Inc. v. jose vicente gomar llacer/Ganidyork,SL -B98466980, FA1652712 (Forum Jan. 25, 2016) (“[B]ecause of the global fame of Complainant’s mark, it is clear that Respondent registered the domain name [citi.land] with actual knowledge of the CITI mark”).
The <citi24group.com> domain name was registered on October 10, 2017. The <citigfx.com> domain name was registered on September 11, 2020. Until recently the <citi24group.com> domain name, which is currently inactive, resolved to a website displaying Complainant’s CITI mark and offering services directly competitive with those of Complainant. The <citigfx.com> domain name currently resolves to that website.
These circumstances, coupled with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Respondent has made no attempt to do so. In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names.
Complainant has established this element.
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website 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 the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
As mentioned, the <citi24group.com> domain name was registered on October 10, 2017. This was 5 days after the decision in Citigroup Inc. v. Amjad Zoabi / United networks ltd, FA1709001747368, in which the same Respondent was found to have registered and used the domain name <citi24.com> in bad faith.
It is clear that Respondent was well aware of Complainant and its famous marks when registering the disputed domain names and did so primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. Further, Respondent is using the domain names in order to masquerade as Complainant by intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website and the services offered on that website.
Accordingly, the Panel finds Respondent registered and is using the domain names in bad faith.
Complainant has established this element.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <citigfx.com> and <citi24group.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: December 4, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page