Regions Bank v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD
Claim Number: FA2108001958551
Complainant is Regions Bank (“Complainant”), represented by Rachel Hofstatter of Honigman LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <regionspppportal.com>, registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 9, 2021; the Forum received payment on August 9, 2021.
On August 18, 2021, Media Elite Holdings Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <regionspppportal.com> domain name is registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Media Elite Holdings Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Media Elite Holdings Limited 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 August 19, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 8, 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@regionspppportal.com. Also on August 19, 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 September 13, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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
Complainant states that it is a full-service provider of consumer and commercial banking, wealth management, and mortgage products and services. Complainant is one of the nation’s largest full-service providers of consumer and commercial banking, wealth management, and mortgage products and services. Its parent company is a member of the S&P 500 Index and has $153 billion in assets. Complainant operates approximately 1,300 banking offices and 2,000 automated teller machines (“ATMs”) across the South, Midwest, and Texas; it has been ranked in the top 10 percent of companies in the Temkin Experience Ratings for five consecutive years, including 2018; it was also ranked No. 1 among super regional banks in 2017 American Customer Satisfaction Index (“ACSI”) report on overall customer satisfaction and was No. 1 in customer satisfaction in 2015. Complainant has rights in the REGIONS mark based upon its registration in the United States in 1995.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its REGIONS mark as it includes the mark in its entirety, merely adding the acronym PPP which stands for Paycheck Protection Program and relates to one of Complainant’s services, the descriptive term “portal”, and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent hosts pay-per-click advertising links to competing services.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent offers the domain name for sale for a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Respondent also attracts users for commercial gain by displaying competing third-party hyperlinks. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the REGIONS mark when it registered the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns rights in the mark REGIONS dating back to 1995 and uses it to provide banking and financial services.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2021.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web site that displays advertising links to products and services that compete with those of Complainant. Further, it is offering the disputed domain name for sale for a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs.
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 disputed domain name includes Complainant’s mark in its entirety, merely adding the acronym PPP which stands for Paycheck Protection Program and relates to one of Complainant’s services, the descriptive term “portal”, and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Addition of generic or descriptive acronyms or terms and a gTLD is generally insufficient to negate confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and the mark it incorporates under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Sullivan & Cromwell LLP v. Kurt Lageschulte, FA2007001905702 (Forum Aug. 19, 2020) (Finding confusing similarity because “Complainant’s SULLCROM mark is the initial, dominant and only distinctive element in the disputed domain name. The hyphen has no distinguishing character nor do the letters ‘llp’ which would in context be taken as a commonplace generic acronym to designate a Limited Liability Partnership and for the purposes of comparison the gTLD <.com> extension may be ignored in the circumstances of this Complaint because as a top level domain extension, it would be recognized as a technical necessity for a domain name and serves no other purpose or meaning in the context.”); see also Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) (“Respondent’s <antfinancial-investorrelations.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ANT FINANCIAL mark. It incorporates the mark entirely. It adds a hyphen, the descriptive terms “investor relations,” and the “.com” gTLD, but these additions are insufficient to distinguish the Domain name from complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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.). Here, the WHOIS information of record lists the registrant as “Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving website displays pay-per-click advertising hyperlinks to competing services. Use of a disputed domain name to host commercial hyperlinks is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. josh greenly / All Access Tickets, FA1507001629217 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as required under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to host a web page that featured links to services that competed with those of the complainant). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent attracts users for commercial gain by displaying competing third-party hyperlinks at the disputed domain name. Use of a confusingly similar domain name to display third-party commercial hyperlinks is evidence of bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. utahhealth, FA 697821 (Forum June 7, 2006) (holding that the registration and use of a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to direct Internet traffic to a commercial “links page” in order to profit from click-through fees or other revenue sources constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA1760954 (Forum Jan. 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s hosting of links to Complainant’s competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”). Therefore, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale for an amount in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Offering to sell a disputed domain name in excess of the costs associated with registration and maintenance suggests bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Retail Royalty Company and AE Direct Co LLC v. Whois Foundation / DOMAIN MAY BE FOR SALE, CHECK AFTERNIC.COM Domain Admin, FA 1821246 (Forum Jan. 13, 2019) (“Respondent lists the disputed domain name for sale for $5,759, which is a price well in excess of out of pocket costs. Such an offering can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”); see also Staples, Inc. v. lin yanxiao, FA1505001617686 (Forum June 4, 2015) (“Respondent’s offering to sell the disputed domain name to a third party (in this case, the general public) supports a finding of bad faith registration and use.”); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's general offer of the disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”). The Panel therefore finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <regionspppportal.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: September 14, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page