Regions Bank v. hgs centre
Claim Number: FA2101001930169
Complainant is Regions Bank (“Complainant”), represented by Rachel Hofstatter of Honigman LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is hgs centre (“Respondent”), Arizona, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <regions-banker.com> (‘the Domain Name’), registered with NameSilo, LLC.
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 January 28, 2021; the Forum received payment on January 28, 2021.
On January 29, 2021, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <regions-banker.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC 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 February 2, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 22, 2021 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@regions-banker.com. Also on February 2, 2021, 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 March 1, 2021 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 summarized as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the trademarks REGIONS and REGIONS BANK, registered, inter alia, in the USA for financial services with first use recorded as 1993. It owns regions.com.
The Domain Name registered in 2019 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks, wholly incorporating them and adding only a hyphen, the suffix ‘er’ and the gTLD “.com” and in the case of the Complainant’s REGIONS mark ‘Bank’ none of which distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark.
Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has no permission from the Complainant to use the Complainant’s marks. The Domain Name has been used for a competing web site falsely using the address of one of the Complainant’s branches and purporting to offer financial services and collecting personal data from customers including passwords. This cannot be a bona fide offering of goods and services or a noncommercial legitimate fair use. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
The Respondent registered the Domain Name to direct it to a competing web sites to deceive Internet users into believing the web site and Domain Name are associated with the Complainant to collect customer information and passwords. False contact details have been provided to the WhoIS database. The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter. The Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the trademarks REGIONS and REGIONS BANK, registered, inter alia, in the USA with first use recorded as 1993. It owns regions.com.
The Domain Name registered in 2019 has been used for a competing web site falsely using the address of one of the Complainant’s branches to collect personal information from customers including passwords. False contact details have been provided to the WhoIS database.
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”).
The Domain Name includes the Complainant's REGIONS and REGIONS BANK marks (which are registered in USA for financial services with first use recorded as 1993), a hyphen, the suffix ‘er’ and the gTLD “.com” and bearing in mind only the REGIONS mark the word ‘bank’.
Adding a hyphen does not distinguish a domain name from a domain name containing the Complainant’s mark. See Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen STC, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003) (The addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i).). Nor does adding the suffix ‘er’.
The gTLD “.com” 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).
Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term ‘bank’ to the Complainant's REGIONS mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's REGIONS trade mark pursuant to the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s REGIONS and REGIONS BANK registered marks.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the use of its marks. 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 Sept. 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 web site attached to the Domain Name purports to offer competing financial services falsely using the address of one of the branches of the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is deceptive and passing off. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. The use is commercial so is not noncommercial legitimate fair use. See iFinex Inc. v. Yuri Heifetz/Genie-Solution, FA 1789385 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent’s activity seeking to cause existing or potential customers of the Complainant’s to believe they are dealing with the complainant is prima facie evidence of the respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).
Further phishing itself cannot be a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”); see also DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
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 made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent’s site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it uses the Domain Name to offer competing services and gather customer information falsely using the address of one of the Complainant’s branches. The use of the Complainant’s address shows that Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its business. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site and services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. 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 phishing is evidence of bad faith registration and use within the Policy 4 (a)(iii) See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA 1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015). As is providing false contact details for the Who Is database. See CNU ONLINE Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1504001614972 (Forum May 29, 2015) (“As the Panel sees that Respondent has provided false or misleading WHOIS information, the Panel finds bad faith in Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
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)(iii) and (iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <regions-banker.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: March 1, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page