National Arbitration Forum

 

DECISION

 

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. Kimberly Richards

Claim Number: FA0804001179260

 

PARTIES

Complainant is The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (“Complainant”), represented by James A. Thomas, North Carolina, USA.  Respondent is Kimberly Richards (“Respondent”), Hawaii, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <infos-rbs.com>, registered with Enom, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

David P. Miranda, Esq., as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 21, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 22, 2008.

 

On April 22, 2008, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <infos-rbs.com> domain name is registered with Enom, Inc. and that the Respondent is identified as the registrant of the name.  Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

 

On April 23, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of May 13, 2008 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@infos-rbs.com by e-mail.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 8, 2008.

 

On May 19, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David P. Miranda, Esq., as Panelist.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (“Complainant”), seeks transfer of the disputed domain name <infos-rbs.com> from Respondent, Kimberly Richards of Hawaii, (“Respondent”).  Complainant, founded in 1727, is one of the world’s leading financial services groups with offices in numerous countries and more than 140,000 employees providing a wide range of financial products and services, including consumer and commercial lending, credit card services, investment and advisory services, real estate services and is ranked among the top ten banks in the world.  Complainant contends that it is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for its RBS mark, including in the United Kingdom since 1996, the EU Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market since 1998, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office since 2006.  Complainant submits proof of these registrations.  Complainant contends that the domain name <infos-rbs.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RBS marks because it fully incorporates Complainant’s mark, and the mere addition of a descriptve or generic term – and a top-level domain extension does not make the disputeddomain name distinct.  Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, that Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the RBS mark and Respondent can not demonstrate any legitimate use of the mark.  Complainant submits that the domain name in question reverts to a website that promently displays the words “The Royal Bank of Scotland,” as well as a photo of a Royal Bank of Scotland branch office.  The unauthorized website is intended to look like a website sponsored or affiliated by Complainant.  Complainant contends that the domain name was registered under Respondent’s name “Kimberly Richards,” and Ms. Richards has no relation to Complainant’s mark RBS and does not use the RBS name in connection with a business.  Complainant further contends that because the RBS mark is a registered trademark and is well known around the world, Respondent is deemed to have actual or constructive knowledge of the mark; and that further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith is that Respondent has been using unauthorized duplications of Complainant’s trademark on its website, and thus it is clear that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s mark and is attempting to take advantage of Complainant’s goodwill.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent contends that she is the victim of identity theft and took no part in the registration of the disputed domain name.  As such, Respondent does not dispute any of Complainant’s allegations, and does not challenge Complainant’s claim for transfer of the domain.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has established, and Respondent does not contest, that Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations and that the domain name at issue <infos-rbs.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registrations.  Since Respondent consents to the transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant, the Panel forgoes an analysis of the issues and directs the transfer of the domain name to Complainant.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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 the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2)   the 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.

 

Respondent contends that she is the victim of identity theft, took no part in the registration of the disputed domain name, does not dispute any of Complainant’s allegations and does not contest transfer of the domain name to Complainant.  Respondent has submitted proof of her efforts to conduct a criminal investigation into the identity theft for the improper purposes of the registration of the domain name at issue.  Based upon the submissions provided, it appears that Respondent Kimberly Richards is an innocent victim and has not engaged in any wrongful, or bad faith conduct in regard to matters pertaining to this case.

 

Where Respondent has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name, the Panel may forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the immediate transfer of the domain name.  See Martin Biochem, Inc. v. Crosby, FA 1008277 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2007); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant … Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).

 

DECISION

Both parties having consented to the transfer of the domain name, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <infos-rbs.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David P. Miranda, Esq., Panelist
Dated: June 2, 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum