The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Maria victoria Sanchez
Claim Number: FA2110001968720
Complainant is The Vanguard Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Laura A. Alos of The Vanguard Group, Inc., Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Maria victoria Sanchez (“Respondent”), Mexico.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <vanguardfintech.net>, 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.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 12, 2021; the Forum received payment on October 12, 2021.
On October 13, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 October 15, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 4, 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@vanguardfintech.net. Also on October 15, 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 November 9, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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
i) Complainant is one of the world’s largest investment companies with approximately $8.3 trillion assets under management. Complainant has rights in the VANGUARD mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 1,784,435, registered July 27, 1993). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VANGUARD mark. Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic term “fintech” along with the “.net” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the VANGUARD mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name for offering competing services to Complainant.
iii) Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent attempts to create consumer confusion with Complainant by offering competing services. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the VANGUARD mark due to the longstanding use of the mark in commerce.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. The disputed domain name was registered on August 2, 2021.
2. Complainant has established rights in the VANGUARD mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 1,784,435, registered July 27, 1993).
3. The resolving website of the disputed domain name shows Complainant’s VANGUARD mark on display and offers similar, competing services to Complainant related to investment and investment strategies.
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 claims to have rights in the VANGUARD mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”). Complainant has provided the Panel with a copy of its USPTO registration for the VANGUARD mark (e.g. Reg. No. 1,784,435, registered July 27, 1993). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VANGUARD mark. Registration of a domain name that contains a mark in its entirety and adds a generic word and a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company v. Waseem A Ali / Micron Web Services, FA 1785616 (Forum June 8, 2018) (finding the <starbucksreal.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the STARBUCKS mark, as “the addition of the generic term ‘real’ to Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy.”), see also MTD Products Inc v. Mike Kernea / Skyline, FA 1775278 (Forum Apr. 19, 2018) (“The mere addition of a gTLD is inconsequential and does not avoid a finding of identity.”). Complainant argues that Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic term “fintech” along with the “.net” gTLD. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also 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”).
Complainant argues Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the VANGUARD mark or register domain names using Complainant’s mark. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Maria Victoria Sanchez” and there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the VANGUARD mark or was commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name for offering competing services to Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name to offer services that compete with a complainant and its related mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (“use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”), see also Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) (“Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Complainant has provided screenshots of the resolving website for the disputed domain name that show Complainant’s VANGUARD mark on display and offering similar, competing services to Complainant related to investment and investment strategies. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent attempts to create consumer confusion with Complainant by offering competing services. Use of a disputed domain name to cause consumer confusion by offering competing services may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) or (iv). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent passes off as the complainant and offers online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant’s business). Complainant has provided screenshots of the disputed domain name that show Complainant’s VANGUARD mark on display and offering similar, competing services to Complainant related to investment and investment strategies. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Complainant argues that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the VANGUARD mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name. To support this assertion, Complainant points to its trademark registrations along with the fact that Respondent impersonates Complainant to further a fraudulent scam. The Panel infers, due to the notoriety of Complainant’s mark and the manner of use of the disputed domain name, e.g., offering competing services that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s right in its mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name, which supports a finding of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(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 <vanguardfintech.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist
Dated: November 12, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page