Bank of America Corporation v. Peter
Carrington a/k/a Party Night, Inc.
Claim Number: FA0208000118311
PARTIES
Complainant
is Bank of America Corporation,
Charlotte, NC, USA (“Complainant”) represented by Larry C. Jones, of Alston
& Bird, LLP. Respondent is Peter Carrington a/k/a Party Night, Inc., Amsterdam, THE NETHERLANDS (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <bankofaamerica.com>,
<bankodamerica.com>, and <bankpfamerica.com> registered with Key-Systems GMBH.
PANEL
On
October 2, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James P. Buchele as
Panelist. 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.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on August 16, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on August 19, 2002.
On
August 16, 2002, Key-Systems GMBH confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain names <bankofaamerica.com>, <bankodamerica.com>, and <bankpfamerica.com> are registered with Key-Systems GMBH and
that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Key-Systems GMBH has verified that
Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems GMBH 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
August 22, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of September
11, 2002 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@bankofaamerica.com, postmaster@bankodamerica.com
and postmaster@bankpfamerica.com by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
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.” 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.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant makes the following
assertions:
1. Respondent’s domain names are confusingly
similar to Complainant’s registered BANK OF AMERICA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the subject domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the
disputed domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant acquired the BANK OF
AMERICA mark in a series of mergers in 1998.
Complainant owns several service marks for BANK OF AMERICA registered
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, including Reg. No. 853,860
issued July 30, 1968. Complainant also owns three registrations for its BANK OF
AMERICA mark in the Benelux countries (The Netherlands, Belgium and
Luxembourg), Respondent’s place of domicile (Reg. Nos. 70,898; 153,782; and,
648,961).
Complainant is currently the largest
consumer bank in the United States and one of the world’s best-known financial
institutions. Complainant’s banking services are advertised extensively under
the BANK OF AMERICA mark worldwide in various forms of media. Complainant also
operates from the <bankofamerica.com> domain name, which resolves to a
website that is an integral aspect of Complainant’s marketing program, and is
used to promote Complainant’s wide variety of financial services. In
advertising and promoting its financial services to the public under its BANK
OF AMERICA mark, Complainant has expended tens of millions of dollars annually.
By reason of the adoption and
longstanding continuous use of Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA mark, the mark has
achieved a high degree of recognition and goodwill, and is a source identifier
for Complainant’s financial services.
Respondent registered the <bankofaamerica.com>, <bankodamerica.com>, and <bankpfamerica.com> domain names on May 27, 2002, May 31,
2002 and June 4, 2002, respectively. Complainant’s investigation of
Respondent’s domain names revealed that they all directly link Internet users
to a pornographic website located at <hanky-panky-college.com>.
Furthermore, Internet users accessing the subject domain names encounter a
series of “pop up” advertisements and links. Two such advertisements represent
products in competition with Complainant’s financial services, namely, “USA
Gold” and “AmericaOne” credit cards.
DISCUSSION
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.”
In view
of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this
administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed
representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and
draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of
the Rules.
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 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.
Complainant has established rights in the
BANK OF AMERICA mark through registering the mark with various worldwide
trademark authorities, and continuous use of the mark since 1968.
Respondent’s <bankofaamerica.com>,
<bankodamerica.com>, and <bankpfamerica.com> domain
names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous BANK OF AMERICA mark.
Respondent’s domain names incorporate various common typographical errors into
Complainant’s famous BANK OF AMERICA mark. Precedent has determined that
second-level domains that deviate insignificantly from a famous mark are
rendered confusingly similar under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. Respondent’s
opportunistic motivations are clear, and its actions represent the infringing
practice of typosquatting whereby a registrant incorporates inconsequential
changes into famous marks. See Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Powerclick, Inc., D2000-1259 (WIPO
Dec. 1, 2000) (holding that the deliberate introduction of errors or changes,
such as the addition of a fourth “w” or the omission of periods or other such
generic typos do not change Respondent’s infringement on a core trademark held
by Complainant); see also Victoria’s
Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding
that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a Respondent does not
create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly
similar to Complainant’s marks).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy
¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Because Respondent failed to submit a
Response in this proceeding the Panel is permitted to resolve all reasonable
inferences in favor of Complainant. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson,
D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is
appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint”).
Furthermore, Respondent’s refusal to
contest Complainant’s assertions implies that Respondent does not refute the
veracity or accuracy of Complainant’s statements, or the logical conclusions
drawn from those statements. See Charles
Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it
appropriate for the Panel to draw adverse inferences from Respondent’s failure
to reply to the Complaint); see also Ziegenfelder
Co. v. VMH Enter., Inc., D2000-0039 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (drawing two
inferences based on Respondent’s failure to respond: (1) that Respondent does
not deny the facts asserted by Complainant, and (2) Respondent does not deny
conclusions which Complainant asserts can be drawn from the facts).
Complainant has submitted unrefuted
evidence that indicates Respondent is commercially capitalizing from the
diversionary use of the subject domain names. More specifically, Respondent’s
domain names resolve to <hanky-panky-college.com>, a domain name that, in
turn, resolves to a website that contains explicit content. Presumably,
Respondent benefits from the diversion of Internet users to this commercial
website. Therefore, Respondent’s opportunistic use of the subject domain names
is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor it
is a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). To find otherwise would not only allow Respondent to
commercially benefit from its infringing activities, but would constitute an
endorsement of the tarnishing effect Respondent’s website has on Complainant’s
established mark. See Big Dog
Holdings, Inc. v. Day, FA 93554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2000) (finding no
legitimate use when Respondent was diverting consumers to its own website by
using Complainant’s trademarks); see also MatchNet plc v. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000)
(finding that it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services to use a
domain name for commercial gain by attracting Internet users to third party
sites offering sexually explicit and pornographic material, where such use is
calculated to mislead consumers and tarnish Complainant’s mark).
There is no evidence that would suggest
Respondent has any legitimate connection to the subject domain names.
Typosquatting, by definition, implies that Respondent is attempting to profit
from the established goodwill of another’s mark. Respondent is not licensed or
authorized to use the BANK OF AMERICA mark, or any variation thereof, in
connection with any use. Because of the fame associated with Complainant’s
mark, its longstanding use and numerous trademark registrations, it is presumed
that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint
Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no
rights or legitimate interest where Respondent was not commonly known by the
mark and never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the
trademarked name); see also Victoria’s
Secret v. Asdak, FA 96542 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2001) (finding
sufficient proof that Respondent was not commonly known by a domain name
confusingly similar to Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark because of
Complainant’s well-established use of the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy
¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Uncontested circumstances and evidence
indicate Respondent has been engaged in the practice of typosquatting. This
practice alone has been recognized as bad faith use of a domain name under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). As previously stated, typosquatting, by its definition,
encapsulates many of the bad faith criterion listed in Policy paragraph 4(b). See
L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Cupcake Patrol,
FA 96504 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 12, 2001) (finding that Respondent acted in bad
faith by establishing a pattern of registering misspellings of famous
trademarks and names); see e.g.
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Zuccarini, FA 94454 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2000)
(awarding <hewlitpackard.com> a misspelling of HEWLETT-PACKARD to
Complainant); see also Bama Rags,
Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 94380 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2000) (awarding
<davemathewsband.com> and <davemattewsband.com>, common
misspellings of DAVE MATTHEWS BAND to Complainant).
Furthermore, Respondent’s domain names
resolve to a pornographic website that tarnishes the goodwill and reputation
associated with Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA mark. Respondent’s registration
of the infringing domain names not only tarnishes Complainant’s mark, but
Respondent commercially benefits from the diverted Internet interest it
receives from its confusingly similar domain names. Respondent has
intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its
website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark; thus,
Respondent’s activities evidence bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(b)(iv). See Youtv, Inc. v.
Alemdar, FA 94243 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith where
Respondent attracted users to his website for commercial gain and linked his
website to pornographic websites); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Northway, FA 95464 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Oct. 11, 2000) (finding that Respondent registered the domain name
<statefarmnews.com> in bad faith because Respondent intended to use
Complainant’s marks to attract the public to the web site without permission
from Complainant).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
has been satisfied.
DECISION
Having established all three elements
required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be hereby GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bankofaamerica.com>, <bankodamerica.com>, and <bankpfamerica.com> domain
names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James P. Buchele, Panelist
Dated: October 7, 2002
Click Here to
return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page