Citizens Financial Group,
Inc. and Charter One Financial, Inc v. landdomain
Claim Number: FA0905001262189
PARTIES
Complainant is Citizens Financial Group, Inc. and Charter One
Financial, Inc. (“Complainant”)
represented by James A. Thomas, of Troutman
Sanders LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <charteronecom.us>, registered with Directi
Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com.
PANEL
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.
Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
(the “Forum”) electronically on
On
On
Having received no Response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to
the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
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. Therefore,
the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in
accordance with the Policy, the 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 name be transferred from Respondent
to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <charteronecom.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHARTER ONE mark.
2.
Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <charteronecom.us>
domain name.
3.
Respondent registered and used the <charteronecom.us> domain name in bad
faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant holds a registration of the
CHARTER ONE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
(Reg. No. 1,748,834 issued
Respondent registered the <charteronecom.us> domain name on
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(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 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
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; and
(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered or is
being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent
as applicable in rendering its decision.
Identical
and/or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant’s multiple,
long-standing trademark registrations with the USPTO establish its rights in
the CHARTER ONE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes,
FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The <charteronecom.us>
domain name consists of Complainant’s CHARTER ONE mark with the space between
the words removed, the word “com,” and the country code top-level domain
(ccTLD) “.us.” The ccTLD is irrelevant
for the purposes of a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. The disputed domain name takes advantage of
Internet users who mistype or forget the period in Complainant’s
<charterone.com> domain name. The
Panel finds that the <charteronecom.us>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHARTER ONE mark pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
See Gardline
Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Rights
or Legitimate Interests
Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant
must first establish a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the Panel finds that
Complainant’s allegations establish such a prima facie case, the burden
shifts to Respondent to show that it does indeed have rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to the guidelines in Policy ¶
4(c). The Panel finds that
Complainant’s allegations are sufficient to establish a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the <charteronecom.us>
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Since
no response was submitted in this case, the Panel may presume that Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Panel will still examine the
record in consideration of the factors listed in Policy ¶ 4(c). See Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb.
Forum
There is no evidence in the record to conclude that Respondent owns any
service marks or trademarks that reflect the <charteronecom.us> domain name. Therefore the Panel finds that
Respondent does not have rights and legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(i). See Meow Media Inc. v. Basil, FA 113280 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds no evidence in the
record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the <charteronecom.us> domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no
license or agreement with Complainant authorizing Respondent to use the CHARTER
ONE mark, and the WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “landdomain.” Thus, Respondent has not established rights
or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The <charteronecom.us> domain name resolves to a website that
fraudulently purports to be Complainant’s official website. Respondent is attempting to pass itself off
as Complainant. The Panel finds Respondent
is using the website for phishing personal information about Complainant’s
customers. A phishing scheme is a
practice “intended to defraud consumers into revealing personal and proprietary
information.” Capital One Fin. Corp. v. Howel, FA 289304 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Registration
and Use in Bad Faith
The Panel infers that the <charteronecom.us> domain name was
being used as part of a phishing scheme.
Respondent is attempting, or possibly has, commercially gained from the
personal information gained through the confusingly similar <charteronecom.us> domain name. The Panel finds this constitutes bad faith
registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Juno Online Servs.,
Inc. v. Iza, FA 245960 (Nat. Arb. Forum
To engage in this phishing scheme,
Respondent is attempting to pass itself off as Complainant. This demonstrates bad faith registration and
use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Monsanto Co. v.
Decepticons, FA 101536 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <charteronecom.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: June 23, 2009
Click Here to
return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page