Regions Bank v. YourJungle Privacy Protection Service / Whois Agent
Claim Number: FA1504001617391
Complainant is Regions Bank (“Complainant”), represented by Rachel Hofstatter of Steptoe & Johnson LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is YourJungle Privacy Protection Service / Whois Agent (“Respondent”), Colorado, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <reggions.com>, registered with NamePal.com #8010.
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 Forum electronically on April 30, 2015; the Forum received payment on April 30, 2015.
On May 2, 2015, NamePal.com #8010 confirmed by email to the Forum that the <reggions.com> domain name is registered with NamePal.com #8010 and identifying the current registrant of the name as Gustavo Winchester, Belo Horizonte, Brazil. NamePal.com #8010 has verified that the registrant is bound by the NamePal.com #8010 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 May 8, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 28, 2015 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration (including both the public whois data and that provided in the registrar’s verification email) as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@reggions.com. Also on May 8, 2015, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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.
An email message was received from Gustavo Winchester on May 11, 2015, offering to sell the domain name for $500. Complainant declined the offer by email on May 12, 2015.
Having received no formal response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 3, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
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" 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 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 one of the largest financial institutions in the United States, with more than $120 billion in assets and approximately 1,650 branches and 2,000 ATMs in 16 states. Complainant has used the REGIONS mark in connection with banking and related financial services continuously since 1993. The mark is the subject of several U.S. trademark registrations, the earliest of which issued in 1995.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <reggions.com>, registered in August 2014, is confusingly similar to its REGIONS mark; 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. In support thereof, Complainant states that Respondent has never been commonly known by the name or mark REGIONS, and that Complainant has no relationship with Respondent. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is being used for a website comprised of advertising links to competitors of Complainant that presumably generate “click-through” fees for Respondent, and that Respondent is intentionally using a misspelled version of Complainant’s mark to attract Internet users to the site. Complainant states further that Respondent has ignored repeated objections to the manner in which it is using the disputed domain name.
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 <reggions.com> is identical to Complainant’s registered mark REGIONS, but for the addition of a letter “G” and the “.com” top-level domain. These changes are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., Regions Bank v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1600146 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 23, 2015) (finding <regionsw.com> confusingly similar to REGIONS); Regions Asset Co. v. Domain Admin / Taranga Services Pty Ltd, FA 1429484 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 26, 2012) (finding <regoins.com> confusingly similar to REGIONS); Regions Asset Co. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1412693 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2011) (finding <rigions.com> confusingly similar to REGIONS); Regions Asset Co. v. Web Master Internet Services Private Ltd., FA 1361383 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 24, 2011) (finding <regins.com> confusingly similar to REGIONS); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Zhichao Yang, FA 1477756 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 7, 2013) (finding <wellfarggo.com> confusingly similar to WELLS FARGO); Register.com, Inc. v. ROMFAB c/o Alf Temme, FA 690841 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2006 (finding <reggister.com> confusingly similar to REGISTER.COM). 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 is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, and its only apparent use is for a website comprised of pay-per-click links to competitors of Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Regions Bank v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1600146, supra; Regions Asset Co. v. Domain Admin / Taranga Services Pty Ltd, supra; Regions Asset Co. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1412693, supra; Regions Asset Co. v. Web Master Internet Services Private Ltd., supra. Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with evidence of such rights or 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)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name “primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor.” Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), 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 registration of a domain name that is nearly identical to Complainant’s mark, together with the use of that domain name to link to commercial websites that compete with Complainant, is indicative of bad faith under the Policy. See, e.g., Regions Bank v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1600146, supra; Regions Asset Co. v. Domain Admin / Taranga Services Pty Ltd, supra; Regions Asset Co. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1412693, supra; Regions Asset Co. v. Web Master Internet Services Private Ltd., supra. The Panel so finds.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <reggions.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: June 4, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page