Citigroup Inc. v. WebMogul
Claim Number: FA0806001212869
Complainant is Citigroup Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Paul
D. McGrady, of Greenberg Traurig, LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <citicashreturns.com>, <citibankcashreturn.com>, <citibankcashreturncard.com>, <citibankcashreturns.com>, <citibankcashreturnscard.com>, <citibankcreditmonitoringservice.com>, <citibankcreditreport.com>, <citibankdiamond.com>, <citibankdividend.com>, <citibankesavings.com>, <citibankhilton.com>, <citibankhiltoncard.com>, <citibankhiltonhhonors.com>, <citibankhiltonhonors.com>, <citibankmonitoring.com>, <citibankmonitoringservice.com>, <citibankplatinum.com>, <citibankprofessional.com>, <citibankstudent.com>, <citibankstudentcard.com>, <citibankupromise.com>, <citicashreturn.com>, <citicashreturncard.com>, <citicashreturnscard.com>, <citidividend.com>, <citihilton.com>, <citihiltoncard.com>, <citihiltonhhonors.com>, <citihiltonhonors.com>, <citimonitoring.com>, <citiprofessional.com>, <citiprofessionalmastercard.com>, <citistudentcard.com>, <citiupromise.com> and <wwwcitibankmastercard.com>, registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com.
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.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 26, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 30, 2008.
On June 30, 2008, Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.Com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <citicashreturns.com>, <citibankcashreturn.com>, <citibankcashreturncard.com>, <citibankcashreturns.com>, <citibankcashreturnscard.com>, <citibankcreditmonitoringservice.com>, <citibankcreditreport.com>, <citibankdiamond.com>, <citibankdividend.com>, <citibankesavings.com>, <citibankhilton.com>, <citibankhiltoncard.com>, <citibankhiltonhhonors.com>, <citibankhiltonhonors.com>, <citibankmonitoring.com>, <citibankmonitoringservice.com>, <citibankplatinum.com>, <citibankprofessional.com>, <citibankstudent.com>, <citibankstudentcard.com>, <citibankupromise.com>, <citicashreturn.com>, <citicashreturncard.com>, <citicashreturnscard.com>, <citidividend.com>, <citihilton.com>, <citihiltoncard.com>, <citihiltonhhonors.com>, <citihiltonhonors.com>, <citimonitoring.com>, <citiprofessional.com>, <citiprofessionalmastercard.com>, <citistudentcard.com>, <citiupromise.com> and <wwwcitibankmastercard.com> domain names are registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com 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 July
9, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
July 29, 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@citicashreturns.com, postmaster@citibankcashreturn.com, postmaster@citibankcashreturncard.com, postmaster@citibankcashreturns.com, postmaster@citibankcashreturnscard.com, postmaster@citibankcreditmonitoringservice.com, postmaster@citibankcreditreport.com, postmaster@citibankdiamond.com, postmaster@citibankdividend.com, postmaster@citibankesavings.com, postmaster@citibankhilton.com, postmaster@citibankhiltoncard.com, postmaster@citibankhiltonhhonors.com, postmaster@citibankhiltonhonors.com, postmaster@citibankmonitoring.com, postmaster@citibankmonitoringservice.com, postmaster@citibankplatinum.com, postmaster@citibankprofessional.com, postmaster@citibankstudent.com, postmaster@citibankstudentcard.com, postmaster@citibankupromise.com, postmaster@citicashreturn.com, postmaster@citicashreturncard.com, postmaster@citicashreturnscard.com, postmaster@citidividend.com, postmaster@citihilton.com, postmaster@citihiltoncard.com, postmaster@citihiltonhhonors.com, postmaster@citihiltonhonors.com, postmaster@citimonitoring.com, postmaster@citiprofessional.com, postmaster@citiprofessionalmastercard.com, postmaster@citistudentcard.com, postmaster@citiupromise.com and postmaster@wwwcitibankmastercard.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On August 6, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <citicashreturns.com>, <citibankcashreturn.com>, <citibankcashreturncard.com>, <citibankcashreturns.com>, <citibankcashreturnscard.com>, <citibankcreditmonitoringservice.com>, <citibankcreditreport.com>, <citibankdiamond.com>, <citibankdividend.com>, <citibankesavings.com>, <citibankhilton.com>, <citibankhiltoncard.com>, <citibankhiltonhhonors.com>, <citibankhiltonhonors.com>, <citibankmonitoring.com>, <citibankmonitoringservice.com>, <citibankplatinum.com>, <citibankprofessional.com>, <citibankstudent.com>, <citibankstudentcard.com>, <citibankupromise.com>, <citicashreturn.com>, <citicashreturncard.com>, <citicashreturnscard.com>, <citidividend.com>, <citihilton.com>, <citihiltoncard.com>, <citihiltonhhonors.com>, <citihiltonhonors.com>, <citimonitoring.com>, <citiprofessional.com>, <citiprofessionalmastercard.com>, <citistudentcard.com>, <citiupromise.com> and <wwwcitibankmastercard.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITI and CITIBANK marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <citicashreturns.com>, <citibankcashreturn.com>, <citibankcashreturncard.com>, <citibankcashreturns.com>, <citibankcashreturnscard.com>, <citibankcreditmonitoringservice.com>, <citibankcreditreport.com>, <citibankdiamond.com>, <citibankdividend.com>, <citibankesavings.com>, <citibankhilton.com>, <citibankhiltoncard.com>, <citibankhiltonhhonors.com>, <citibankhiltonhonors.com>, <citibankmonitoring.com>, <citibankmonitoringservice.com>, <citibankplatinum.com>, <citibankprofessional.com>, <citibankstudent.com>, <citibankstudentcard.com>, <citibankupromise.com>, <citicashreturn.com>, <citicashreturncard.com>, <citicashreturnscard.com>, <citidividend.com>, <citihilton.com>, <citihiltoncard.com>, <citihiltonhhonors.com>, <citihiltonhonors.com>, <citimonitoring.com>, <citiprofessional.com>, <citiprofessionalmastercard.com>, <citistudentcard.com>, <citiupromise.com> and <wwwcitibankmastercard.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <citicashreturns.com>, <citibankcashreturn.com>, <citibankcashreturncard.com>, <citibankcashreturns.com>, <citibankcashreturnscard.com>, <citibankcreditmonitoringservice.com>, <citibankcreditreport.com>, <citibankdiamond.com>, <citibankdividend.com>, <citibankesavings.com>, <citibankhilton.com>, <citibankhiltoncard.com>, <citibankhiltonhhonors.com>, <citibankhiltonhonors.com>, <citibankmonitoring.com>, <citibankmonitoringservice.com>, <citibankplatinum.com>, <citibankprofessional.com>, <citibankstudent.com>, <citibankstudentcard.com>, <citibankupromise.com>, <citicashreturn.com>, <citicashreturncard.com>, <citicashreturnscard.com>, <citidividend.com>, <citihilton.com>, <citihiltoncard.com>, <citihiltonhhonors.com>, <citihiltonhonors.com>, <citimonitoring.com>, <citiprofessional.com>, <citiprofessionalmastercard.com>, <citistudentcard.com>, <citiupromise.com> and <wwwcitibankmastercard.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Citigroup Inc., is a well-known financial services company offering financial services including consumer and commercial lending, credit card services, real estate services, investment and advisory services and providing venture capital to others. Complainant uses its CITI and CITIBANK marks in association with this business and registered the marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on December 8, 1981 (Reg. No. 1,181,467) and January 19, 1960 (Reg. No. 691,815), respectively. Complainant also applied to register its CITI CASHRETURNS mark with the USPTO on February 13, 2007, which was subsequently registered on April 29, 2008 (Reg. No. 3,419,395). Previous panels have found the CITI and CITIBANK marks to be famous and well known since 1980. See Citigroup Inc. v. Acme Mail, FA 241987 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 12, 2004) (finding that the CITI and CITIBANK marks were famous and well known since 1980).
Respondent,
WebMogul, registered the <citibankdiamond.com>,
<citiupromise.com>, <citiprofessional.com>,
<citibankplatinum.com>, <citimonitoring.com> and <citibankupromise.com>
domain names on September 27, 2005. Respondent
registered the <citidividend.com> domain name on October 2,
2005. Respondent registered the <wwwcitibankmastercard.com>
domain name on November 21, 2005. Respondent
registered the <citibankdividend.com> domain name on December 1,
2005. Respondent registered the
<citibankcreditmonitoringservice.com>, <citibankmonitoringservice.com>
and <citibankmonitoring.com> domain names on February 23,
2006. Respondent registered the <citibankcreditreport.com>
domain name on April 27, 2006. Respondent
registered the <citibankesavings.com> domain name on May 28,
2006. Respondent registered the <citibankstudent.com>
domain name on August 30, 2006.
Respondent registered the <citibankstudentcard.com> domain
name on October 20, 2006. Respondent
registered the <citibankhilton.com>, <citihiltoncard.com>,
<citihiltonhonors.com>, <citihiltonhhonors.com>,
<citihilton.com>, <citibankhiltoncard.com>,<citibankhiltonhonors.com>
and <citibankhiltonhhonors.com> domain names on December 26, 2006. Respondent registered the <citibankprofessional.com>
and <citiprofessionalmastercard.com> domain names on April 4,
2007. Respondent registered the <citicashreturns.com>, <citibankcashreturn.com>,
<citibankcashreturncard.com>, <citibankcashreturns.com>,
<citicashreturn.com>, <citicashreturncard.com>,
<citicashreturnscard.com> and <citibankcashreturnscard.com> domain
names on August 27, 2007. Respondent
registered the <citistudentcard.com> domain name on September 14,
2007. Each of the disputed domain names
resolves to a website promoting the competitors of Complainant through
advertisements.
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 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. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also 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.”).
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.
The Panel finds that Complainant’s USPTO registrations of its CITI and CITIBANK marks are sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in the marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Malain, FA 705262 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 19, 2006) (“Complainant’s registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office of the trademark, STATE FARM, establishes its rights in the STATE FARM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Expedia, Inc. v. Emmerson, FA 873346 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 9, 2007) (“Complainant’s trademark registrations with the USPTO adequately demonstrate its rights in the [EXPEDIA] mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Additionally, the Panel finds that Complainant has established sufficient rights in its CITI CASHRETURNS mark due to the effective date of the registration being the filing date which predates the registration of the the <citicashreturns.com>, <citibankcashreturn.com>, <citibankcashreturncard.com>, <citibankcashreturns.com>, <citicashreturn.com>, <citicashreturncard.com>, <citicashreturnscard.com> and <citibankcashreturnscard.com> domain names on August 27, 2007. See Planetary Soc’y v. Rosillo, D2001-1228 (WIPO Feb. 12, 2002) (holding that the effective date of Complainant’s trademark rights date back to the application’s filing date); see also Thompson v. Zimmer, FA 190625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 27, 2003) (“As Complainant’s trademark application was subsequently approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the relevant date for showing ‘rights’ in the mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) dates back to Complainant’s filing date.”).
Respondent’s
disputed domain names can be organized into three categories. It is important to note that the addition of
generic top-level domains (“gTLD”) to marks is insignificant when evaluating the
similarity between a mark and domain name due to all domain names being
required to have a top-level domain. See Rollerblade, Inc. v.
McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the
domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the
purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar); see also Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO
Apr. 22, 2000) ("[T]he addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD)
name ‘.com’ is . . . without legal significance since use
of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants . . . ."). Additionally, the omission of spaces is irrelevant as spaces
are not permitted in a domain name. See Albertson’s, Inc. v.
Bennett, FA 117013 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2002) (“[T]he absence of a
space and the hyphen between the words of the mark are not changes that are
capable of overcoming a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) identical analysis.”); see also Gurney’s Inn Resort & Spa Ltd. v. Whitney, FA 140656
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2003) (“Punctuation and spaces between words are not
significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and a mark because
punctuation and spaces are not reproducible in a domain name.”).
First,
Respondent has domain names that incorporate Complainant’s marks in their
entirety with the addition of generic words and the gTLD “.com.” The addition of generic terms or phrases is
not enough to overcome the confusing similarity between Complainant’s marks and
Respondent’s disputed domain names. See Arthur Guinness Son &
Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding
confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical
mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also AXA China Region Ltd. v. KANNET Ltd., D2000-1377 (WIPO Nov.
29, 2000) (finding that the <axachinaregion.com> domain name “is
confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark ‘AXA’” because “common
geographic qualifiers or generic nouns can rarely be relied upon to
differentiate the mark if the other elements of the domain name comprise a mark
or marks in which another party has rights”).
Respondent
utilizes Complainant’s CITI mark with the addition of the generic terms
“monitoring,” “professional,” “dividend,” or “student card” in the <citimonitoring.com>,
<citiprofessional.com>, <citidividend.com>, and <citistudentcard.com>
domain names. Respondent also utilizes
Complainant’s CITIBANK mark with the additional generic terms of “professional,”
“diamond,” “platinum,” “dividend,” “monitoring,” “esavings” and “student” such
as in the <citibankprofessional.com>, <citibankdiamond.com>,
<citibankplatinum.com>, <citibankdividend.com>, <citibankmonitoring.com>,
<citibankesavings.com>, <citibankstudent.com> domain
names. Respondent adds the generic
phrases “credit monitoring service,” “monitoring service,” “credit report,” and
“student card” to Complainant’s CITIBANK mark in the <citibankcreditmonitoringservice.com>,
<citibankmonitoringservice.com>, <citibankcreditreport.com>,
and <citibankstudentcard.com> domain names. Furthermore, Respondent omits the space
between the two words of Complainant’s CITI CASHRETURNS mark for its <citicashreturns.com>
domain name and adds the generic term “card” for the <citicashreturnscard.com>
domain name. Respondent omits the
space between the two words of Complainant’s CITI CASHRETURNS mark and the “s”
for the <citicashreturn.com> domain name and adds the generic term
“card” for the <citicashreturncard.com> domain name. The omission of the letter “s” from
Complainant’s CITI CASHRETURNS mark fails to distinguish the mark from the
domain name. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. HarperStephens,
D2000-0716 (WIPO Sept. 5, 2000) (finding that deleting the letter “s” from the
complainant’s UNIVERSAL STUDIOS STORE mark did not change the overall
impression of the mark and thus made the disputed domain name confusingly
similar to it). The Panel finds that Respondent has failed to
distinguish the above disputed domain names and thus the above disputed domain
names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITI, CITIBANK, and/or CITI CASH
RETURNS marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Second,
Respondent adds the descriptive generic term “bank” after the first word of
Complainant’s CITI CASHRETURNS mark or attempts to merge Complainant’s CITIBANK
and CITI CASHRETURNS marks potentially making the following domain names more
likely to cause confusion to Internet users for the <citibankcashreturns.com>
domain name, then with omitting the letter “s” for the <citibankcashreturn.com>
domain name and finally, by adding the generic term “card” for the <citibankcashreturncard.com>
and <citibankcashreturnscard.com> domain names. Again, the Panel finds that Respondent’s
disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITIBANK and
CITI CASHRETURNS marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Third, Respondent fully incorporates Complainant’s marks
with the addition of other’s marks.
Respondent adds the UPROMISE mark to Complainant’s CITI and CITIBANK
marks in the <citiupromise.com> and
<citibankupromise.com> domain names, which have an obvious
relationship to the credit card Complainant and UPROMISE have co-marketed “CITI
UPROMISE credit card.” Responent adds
the HILTON mark to Complainant’s CITI mark in the <citihilton.com>
domain name, with the addition of the generic term “card” in the <citihiltoncard.com>
domain name and the generic terms “honors” and “hhonors” in the <citihiltonhonors.com>
and <citihiltonhhonors.com> domain names, which have an obvious
relationship to the credit card Complainant and Hilton have co-marketed “CITI
HILTON HHonors credit card.” Respondent
also adds the HILTON mark to Complainant’s CITIBANK mark in the <citibankhilton.com>
domain name, with the additional generic term “card” and “hhonors” in the <citibankhiltoncard.com>
and <citibankhiltonhhonors.com> domain names, and the generic term
“honors” in the <citibankhiltonhonors.com> domain name. Respondent adds the MASTERCARD mark with
Complainant’s CITI mark and the generic term “professional” in the <citiprofessionalmastercard.com>
domain name. The addition of “www”
before a mark does not distinguish the mark from the domain name pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name
<wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s
registered trademark BANK OF AMERICA because it “takes advantage of a typing
error (eliminating the period between the www and the domain name) that users
commonly make when searching on the Internet”); see also Neiman Marcus Group,
Inc. v. S1A, FA 128683 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2002) (holding
confusing similarity has been established because the prefix "www"
does not sufficiently differentiate the <wwwneimanmarcus.com> domain name
from the complainant's NEIMAN-MARCUS mark).
Therefore, Respondent’s <wwwcitibankmastercard.com> domain name is not
sufficiently distinguished from Complainant’s CITIBANK mark with the additional
MASTERCARD mark.
Based on the above discussed patterns of Respondent’s disputed domain names to add generic terms, merging Complainant’s marks or to add other’s marks in the disputed domain names, the Panel finds that all of Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITI, CITIBANK and/or CITI CASHRETURNS marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Because the Panel finds that Complainant has successfully met its burden of setting forth a prima facie case supporting its allegations that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, Respondent receives the burden of proving that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also Towmaster, Inc. v. Hale, FA 973506 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 4, 2007) (“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), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”).
The evidence within the record indicates that Respondent is
not commonly known by the disputed domain names. The WHOIS information lists Respondent as
“WebMogul,” and Complainant claims that it has never granted Respondent license
or permission to use its marks.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate
interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru
Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat.
Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not
commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no
evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the
respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also Ian
Schrager Hotels, L.L.C. v. Taylor,
FA 173369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that without demonstrable
evidence to support the assertion that a respondent is commonly known by a
domain name, the assertion must be rejected).
Respondent’s disputed domain names
resolve to websites that promote Complainant’s competitors via hyperlinks and
third-party advertisements. Respondent
presumably receives commercial benefit through the receipt of referral
fees. The Panel finds that this does not
constitute 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 ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. balata
inc, FA 888649 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2007) (finding that “using the
confusingly similar <viaggidea.com> domain name to operate a
website that features links to various commercial websites from which
Respondent presumably receives referral fees….is neither a bona fide
offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate
non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also TM Acquisition Corp.
v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the
respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users
to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the
complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or
services).
The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to host
websites that promote Complainant’s competitors via third-party links and
advertisements likely disrupts Complainant’s business, given the potential for
Internet customers to be routed to these competitors. The Panel finds this to constitute evidence
that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith
under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See
Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13,
2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract
Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the
websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and
use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see
also
The Panel also finds that Respondent has created confusion
as to the disputed domain names and Complainant’s marks. Because Respondent has created a commercial
use for the disputed domain names through the third-party advertisements to
Complainant’s competitors, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad
faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Associated Newspapers Ltd. v.
Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain
name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain
name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably
commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”);
see also State Fair of Tex. v. Granbury.com, FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept.
12, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent registered the domain name
<bigtex.net> to infringe on the complainant’s goodwill and attract
Internet users to the respondent’s website).
The Panel finds that Complainant has established 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 <citicashreturns.com>, <citibankcashreturn.com>, <citibankcashreturncard.com>, <citibankcashreturns.com>, <citibankcashreturnscard.com>, <citibankcreditmonitoringservice.com>, <citibankcreditreport.com>, <citibankdiamond.com>, <citibankdividend.com>, <citibankesavings.com>, <citibankhilton.com>, <citibankhiltoncard.com>, <citibankhiltonhhonors.com>, <citibankhiltonhonors.com>, <citibankmonitoring.com>, <citibankmonitoringservice.com>, <citibankplatinum.com>, <citibankprofessional.com>, <citibankstudent.com>, <citibankstudentcard.com>, <citibankupromise.com>, <citicashreturn.com>, <citicashreturncard.com>, <citicashreturnscard.com>, <citidividend.com>, <citihilton.com>, <citihiltoncard.com>, <citihiltonhhonors.com>, <citihiltonhonors.com>, <citimonitoring.com>, <citiprofessional.com>, <citiprofessionalmastercard.com>, <citistudentcard.com>, <citiupromise.com> and <wwwcitibankmastercard.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: August 12, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum