SAFE Credit Union v. Liaokaifeng
Claim Number: FA1310001522816
Complainant is SAFE Credit Union (“Complainant”), represented by Katherine C. Bray of Moore Brewer Wolfe Jones Tyler & North, California, USA. Respondent is Liaokaifeng (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <wwwsafecu.org>, registered with Pdr Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.Com (R27-Lror).
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 3, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 3, 2013.
On October 26, 2013, Pdr Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.Com (R27-Lror) confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <wwwsafecu.org> domain name is registered with Pdr Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.Com (R27-Lror) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Pdr Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.Com (R27-Lror) has verified that Respondent is bound by the Pdr Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.Com (R27-Lror) 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 29, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 18, 2013 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@wwwsafecu.org. Also on October 29, 2013, 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 21, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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" 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 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a financial institution located in California, with members located throughout the United States. Complainant uses the trademark and service mark SAFE CREDIT UNION, in which it holds registered and common-law rights, to identify the services that it offers to eligible members. Complainant operates a website using the domain name <safecu.org>.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <wwwsafecu.org> on October 2, 2012. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. Complainant states that Respondent is using the domain name for a web page that contains links to competing products and services. Complainant further states that it has not authorized Respondent to use its marks, and alleges that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. On these grounds Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
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(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.”).
The disputed domain name is comprised of an abbreviated form of Complainant’s registered mark, with the addition of the generic term “www” and the generic top-level domain “.org”. None of these changes significantly diminish the similarity of the domain name to Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., Patelco Credit Union v. Nevis Domains LLC, D2007-0223 (WIPO May 29, 2007) (finding <patelcocu.org> identical or confusingly similar to PATELCO CREDIT UNION); United Parcel Service of America, Inc. v. Michael Robert, D2008-0339 (Apr. 29, 2008) (finding <wwwups.org> confusingly similar to UPS). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name corresponds to Complainant’s mark and domain name, with a minor typographical error; and the only apparent use of the domain name is in connection with a website seemingly calculated to create and exploit confusion among Internet users and infringe upon Complainant’s marks.
Respondent has not come forward with any evidence of rights or legitimate interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that “by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent’s] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service
on [Respondent’s] web site or location.”
Respondent’s use of the domain name for a website containing links to Complainant’s competitors, presumably generating clickthrough or referral fees for Respondent, is indicative of bad faith use under the Policy. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Albert Jackson, FA 314119 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 28, 2004) (finding Respondent’s registration and use of <wwwstatefarminsurance.com> for a website providing links to competing insurance websites to be in bad faith). Absent any evidence that the domain name was registered for some other purpose, the Panel infers that the name was registered in bad faith as well.
Having considered all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wwwsafecu.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: November 23, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page