The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. v. Hildegard Gruener
Claim Number: FA1505001620119
Complainant is The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Mark Sommers of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., USA. Respondent is Hildegard Gruener, Austria (“Respondent”).
Complainant also named as respondents Petr Kudlacek / APRO Software / Claudia Vybiral / smeet vikani / superdiscountlikes / J. Miles , which entities are dismissed without prejudice as noted below.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are:
- <pnc-bank-online.com>,
- <pnc-bank-checking.com>,
- <pncbankpersonalbanking.com>,
- <pnc-online-banking.com>,
- <pncbank-personal-banking.com>, and
- <pncbank-online-banking.com> .
These listed domain names are sometimes referred to herein individually and/or collectively as the “Disputed Domain Names”.
Each of these listed Disputed Domain Names is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The following listed domain names registered by the entities that have been dismissed, as noted below, are not subject to this award:
-J. Miles <pnc-bank-com.com>,
-Petr Kudlacek (AKA APRO Software) <pnc-personal-banking.com>,
-Petr Kudlacek (AKA APRO Software) <pnc-online-banking-personal.com>,
-Petr Kudlacek (AKA APRO Software) <pnc-banking.com>,
-Petr Kudlacek (AKA APRO Software) <pnc-bank-banking.com>,
-smeet vikani (AKA superdiscountlikes) <pnc-bank-online-banking.com>, and
-Claudi Vybiral <pnc-checking.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.
Kendall C. Reed as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 18, 2015; the Forum received payment on May 18, 2015.
On May 20, 2015, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
following Disputed Domain Names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names:
- <pnc-bank-online.com>,
- <pnc-bank-checking.com>,
- <pncbankpersonalbanking.com>,
- <pnc-online-banking.com>,
- <pncbank-personal-banking.com>, and
- <pncbank-online-banking.com> .
GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 27, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 16, 2015 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@pnc-bank-online.com>,
- <postmaster@pnc-bank-checking.com>,
- <postmaster@pncbankpersonalbanking.com>,
- <postmaster@pnc-online-banking.com>,
- <postmaster@pncbank-personal-banking.com>, and
- <postmaster@pncbank-online-banking.com> .
Also on May 27, 2015, 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.
No Response was received from Respondent.
On June 23, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kendall C. Reed as Panelist.
On July 9, 2015 the panel ordered an extension in time in which to render its award.
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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is one of the largest national diversified financial service organizations in the United States, providing retail banking, corporate and institutional banking, residential mortgage banking, and asset management services. Complainant is a publicly traded bank holding company, with PNC Bank as the principal bank subsidiary. It has more than 140 active non-bank subsidiaries. It is a Fortune 200 company, employs over 53,000 employees in the US and abroad, and has approximately 2,700 branch locations, 40 brokerage offices in 19 states and the District of Columbia, reaching one third of the US population and the corporate headquarters of half of the Fortune 500. It has approximately 6,500,000 checking account customers.
Complainant has registered the following trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office:
PNC (Registration No. 1,416,898, issued November 11, 1986),
PNC (and Design) (Registration No. 2,508,843, issued November 20, 2001),
PNC CAPITAL MARKETS (Registration No., 2,162,648, issued June 2, 1998), and
PNCBANK ( Registration No. 1,863,311, issued November 15, 1994).
Additionally, Complainant has used its PNC Marks, and variations thereof, since at least as early as 1976. [All of these registrations and common law rights are sometimes individually and/or collectively referred to herein as “Complainant’s Marks”.]
Respondent registered each of the Disputed Domain Names on various dates between December 2014 and March 2015.
Complainant has recently learned that Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Names to divert Internet users to websites where Respondent identifies itself with infringing PNC formative monikers. In addition Respondent spoofs websites each purporting to identify PNC Bank N.A. (A legitimate subsidiary of Complainant) as the source of the website, and reflecting identical content detailing Complainant’s company history, operations, and even the number of its branches nationwide. In addition, Respondent’s websites each featured sponsored-link advertisements for third-party commercial websites, Respondent undoubtedly receives “click-through” revenue when Internet users click on the sponsored-linked ads featured on each of these websites.
Respondent’s use of Complainant’s Marks is identical to or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Marks because each consists of Complainant’s PNC Mark combined with a descriptive term such as “bank”, “banking”, or “checking”, and the non-distinguishing gTLD “.com.” Further, the addition of descriptive terms like “bank”, “banking”, or “checking” to Complainant’s PNC Mark actually heightens the confusing similarity because these terms describe Complainant’s financial service offerings.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names for an infringing website that features sponsored-link advertisements does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names under the Policy. In addition, Respondent is not and has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names.
Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names is in bad faith. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names under the policy. Specifically, Respondent has been subject to at least eight prior adverse UDRP decisions in connection with the registration and use of domain names that infringe the brands of others:
- One West Bank, FSB v. Hildegard Gruener, FA 1482946 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 20, 2013)
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Hildegard Gruener, FA 1521506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 22, 2013)
- Bloomberg Financial L.P. v. Hildegard Gruener, FA 1522367 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 7, 2013)
- Bloomberg Financial L.P. v. Hildegard Gruener, FA 1538345 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 17, 2014)
- UBS AG v. Hildegard Gruener, FA 1547946 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 15, 2014)
- Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Hildegard Gruener, FA 1549208 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 1, 2014)
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Hildegard Gruener, FA 1551952 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 6, 2014)
- United Airlines, Inc. v. Hildegard Gruener, FA 1586877 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 25, 2014)
Further, Respondent’s registration and fraudulent use of the Disputed Domain Names is unfairly disrupting Complainant’s business, tarnishing Complainant’s Marks and duping consumers into visiting websites they believe to be affiliated with Complainant when in fact Respondent is simply using these websites to profit from sponsored-link advertising. Third, Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names is intended to intentionally attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant and Complainant’s Marks as to the source sponsorship, affiliation, and endorsement of Respondent’s websites. Indeed, Respondent’s websites seek to mimic legitimate PNC websites and falsely suggest that the website is maintained by, sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant. Fourth, Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in Complainant’s Marks when it registered and used the Disputed Domain Names because Respondent’s websites all reflect the same content and text detailing Complainant and its banking operations in order to mimic a legitimate website of Complainant. By registering the Disputed Domain Names with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in Complainant’s Marks and then making infringing use of Complainant’s Marks on phony websites, Respondent acted in bad faith. Finally, Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Names nearly three decades after the issuance of federal registrations for Complainant’s Marks constitutes bad faith. Complainant’s federal registration for Complainant’s marks constitutes constructive notice of its rights under Complainant’s Marks, as did registration of Complainant’s other federally registered PNC marks.
B. Respondent
No Response was filed by Respondent.
1. Complainant is one of the largest national diversified financial service organizations in the United States, providing retail banking, corporate and institutional banking, residential mortgage banking, and asset management services.
2. Complainant has registered the following trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office before Respondent registered any of the Disputed Domain Names:
- PNC,
- PNC (and Design),
- PNC CAPITAL MARKETS, and
- PNCBANK.
3. Respondent registered each of the Disputed Domain Names on various dates between January 2015 and March 2015.
4. The websites to which the Disputed Domain Names resolve contain identical content discussing Complainant’s company history, and operations. Further, Respondent’s websites each prominently feature sponsored-links advertisements for third-party commercial websites offering services competitive with those offered by Complainant.
5. Respondent has been subject to at least eight prior adverse UDRP decisions in connection with the registration and use of domain names that infringe the brands of others:
- One West Bank, FSB v. Hildegard Gruener, FA 1482946 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 20, 2013)
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Hildegard Gruener, FA 1521506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 22, 2013)
- Bloomberg Financial L.P. v. Hildegard Gruener, FA 1522367 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 7, 2013)
- Bloomberg Financial L.P. v. Hildegard Gruener, FA 1538345 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 17, 2014)
- UBS AG v. Hildegard Gruener, FA 1547946 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 15, 2014)
- Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Hildegard Gruener, FA 1549208 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 1, 2014)
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Hildegard Gruener, FA 1551952 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 6, 2014)
- United Airlines, Inc. v. Hildegard Gruener, FA 1586877 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 25, 2014)
6. The registrants for the domain names listed in the caption to Complainant’s complaint, and to which the Complainant seeks to make this award applicable are as follows:
-HildegardGruener <pnc-bank-online.com>,
<pnc-bank-checking.com>,
<pncbankpersonalbanking.com>,
<pnc-online-banking.com>,
<pncbank-personal-banking.com>, and
<pncbank-online-banking.com> .
-J. Miles <pnc-bank-com.com>
-Petr Kudlacek <pnc-personal-banking.com>,
(AKA APRO Software) <pnc-online-banking-personal.com>,
<pnc-banking.com>,
<pnc-bank-banking.com>
-smeet vikani <pnc-bank-online-banking.com>
(AKA superdiscountlikes)
-Claudi Vybiral <pnc-checking.com
7. The WHOIS records for these listed domain names indicate that these individuals reside in four different countries, involving five different servers, and all were registered with GoDaddy.com.
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.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Respondents
Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that: “The complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
Other panels have found that multiple named respondents are “registered by the same domain holder” where evidence is provided to the Panel that supports a finding that each of the named respondents is actually one-in-the-same entity. See Google Inc. v. Akhil Mishra / Rajeev / Latika Sharma / Satyendra Kumar Pandey / Satendra Kumar / Jameet / Sayni Rana, FA 1617405 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 9, 2015) (finding that there is colorable evidence supporting a conclusion that the nominal Respondents are all one-in-the-same where Complainant showed that the webpages addressed by the at-issue domain names contain near identical content). See also, Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Timothy Mays aka Linda Haley aka Edithc Barberdi, FA 1617061 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 9, 2015) (finding that all named Respondents should be treated as one, where all of the domain names were registered with the same registrar, the domain names were registered within a month of each other, all of the WHOIS e-mail addresses have the same structure, and all of the domain names intermittently redirected visitors to the same website.). See also Google Inc. v. Sunil K, iSupport Solution / Aditi Sawant, iSupport Solution / Rohit Sharma / Vineet Sharma / Deep / Sunil K, FA 1599162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2015) (finding that that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person or entity, which is operating under several aliases, where Complainant alleged that each of the contested domain names is being used to promote “technical services” via websites that make unauthorized use of the GMAIL trademark and where the content of each website was nearly the same, and all of the domain names were shared on one of two servers.) See also Microsoft Corporation v. PURNA BANIYA / GAURAV / Harkesh / Manoj / Sheker, FA 1597757 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2015) (finding that the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person or entity where the registrant for each domain name resides in India, the websites for each of the domain names are almost identical, and all list the same phone number, and where Respondent indicated that all nine domain names are administered by a single account.) See also Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. v. qin shuang / linlan / lan lin / xiayun / yun xia / weng hong / cao ying / zhang ling / cheguan / guan che / ling feng / zhounnichang / bichang zhou / panxia / xia pan, FA 1442748 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 20, 2012) (finding that, in absence of any counterargument from Respondent, the listed entities are jointly controlled by a single party. The Panel is willing to allow the Complaint to be brought against the several holders, treating them collectively as Respondent, even though evidence of common ownership is far from overwhelming.)
On the other hand, where several named respondents are not actually one-in-the-same entity, it is appropriate to dismiss all but a single named respondent. See The Neat Company v. Christopher LaHaie / Soaring Incorporated, FA 1394246 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 27, 2011) (finding that, while 4 of the 5 domain names at issue show Christopher LaHaie as the registrant, the <neatdesk.net> shows Soaring Incorporated as the registrant. The Panel finds that Complainant failed to present evidence that the <neatdesk.net> domain name is owned by the same holder that owns the <neatreceipt.org>, <tryneat.net>,< neatdesk.org>, and <tryneat.org> domain names. Therefore, the Panel dismisses the <neatdesk.net> domain name and the Panel will proceed with its UDRP analysis for the <neatreceipt.org>, <tryneat.net>, <neatdesk.org>, and <tryneat.org> domain names only, all registered by Christopher LaHaie.)
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities named in the caption (Hildegard Gruener / Petr Kudlacek / APRO Software / Claudia Vybiral / smeet vikani / superdiscountlikes / J. Miles ) are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Complainant points to the fact that all of the domain names are registered with GoDaddy, all of the domain names point to the same website, and all of the domain names were registered over a short period of time, from December 2014 to March 2015.
The Panel disagrees given the facts of this matter. The WHOIS Records show five registrants for these thirteen domain names. Each registrant has a different address, and these addresses are located in different cities around the world (two in Wien, Austria, one in Praha, Czech Republic, one in Hawaii, USA, and one in N. Bergen, USA). Five different hosting servers are shown.
Complainant alleges that each of the thirteen domain names point to the same website, but the screen shots for each of the thirteen websites provided as exhibits to the Complaint show thirteen separate websites; admittedly these websites contain nearly identical appearance and verbiage, but they are still different one from another and not the same website.
It is true that all of these thirteen domain names are registered with GoDaddy, but such is a very common registrar and does not demonstrate that a single entity is involved.
The Panel believes that Complainant may have demonstrated concerted action among these registrants, but that is not the standard. Rule 3(c) requires “the same domain holder,” which the Panel interprets to require the same legal entity, even if hidden behind aliases.
As such, The following registrants and associated domain names are hereby dismissed without prejudice under Rule 3(c):
-J. Miles <pnc-bank-com.com>,
-Petr Kudlacek (AKA APRO Software) <pnc-personal-banking.com>,
-Petr Kudlacek (AKA APRO Software) <pnc-online-banking-personal.com>,
-Petr Kudlacek (AKA APRO Software) <pnc-banking.com>,
-Petr Kudlacek (AKA APRO Software) <pnc-bank-banking.com>,
-smeet vikani (AKA superdiscountlikes) <pnc-bank-online-banking.com>, and
-Claudi Vybiral <pnc-checking.com>.
This matter will proceed against Respondent, Hildegard Gruener, and with respect to the following domain names:
- <pnc-bank-online.com>,
- <pnc-bank-checking.com>,
- <pncbankpersonalbanking.com>,
- <pnc-online-banking.com>,
- <pncbank-personal-banking.com>, and
- <pncbank-online-banking.com> .
Complainant has established rights in Complainant’s Marks for purposes of the Policy by virtue of its registration thereof with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [Complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, Complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that it is irrelevant whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country of the respondent’s residence).
Complainant has established that each of the Disputed Domain Names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Marks. The Disputed Domain Names all include Complainant’s PNC Mark and incorporate the descriptive terms “bank,” “banking,” “checking,” “com,” “online,” or “personal.” Some of the Disputed Domain Names include hyphens, and each domain names adds the gTLD “.com” to the domain names.
The addition of descriptive words generally does little to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from Complainant’s Marks. See Novell, Inc. v. Taeho Kim, FA 167964 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2003) (finding the <novellsolutions.com> domain name confusingly similar to the NOVELL mark despite the addition of the descriptive term “solutions” because even though “the word ‘solutions’ is descriptive when used for software, Respondent has used this word paired with Complainant's trademark NOVELL”); see also Am. Express Co. v. Buy Now, FA 318783 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 14, 2004) (“In the view of the Panel, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMERICAN EXPRESS and AMEX marks. Each disputed domain name contains the AMERICAN EXPRESS or AMEX marks in its entirety and merely adds no distinctive, descriptive and generic terms, some of which describe Complainant’s business.”).
Additionally, the addition of a hyphen does nothing to decrease confusing similarity. See Sports Auth. Mich. Inc. v. Batu 5, FA 176541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 23, 2003) (“The addition of a hyphen to Complainant's mark does not create a distinct characteristic capable of overcoming a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) confusingly similar analysis.”).
Finally, the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (holding that attaching a gTLD is “unable to create a distinction capable of overcoming a finding of confusing similarity”).
As such, Complainant has established the first element of the Policy.
Under the second element of the Policy, the 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. 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 UDRP ¶ 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 AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant has demonstrated a prima facie case that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. Respondent has not generally been known by the Disputed Domain Names as demonstrated by the WHOIS records for the Disputed Domain Names. The WHOIS records for each of the Disputed Domain Names (provided as exhibits to the complaint) show that Respondent’s name is Hildegard Gruener, not “PNC”. See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Further, Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to offer competing services to those of Complainant, which is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent’s website prominently displays click-through advertisements for financial services competitive to those offered by Complainant, such as credit cards and financial loans. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant’s mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant).
Respondent did not provide a response and has therefore failed to carry its burden of establishing rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names.
As such, Complainant has established the second element of the Policy.
Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Names to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users through a likelihood of confusion with Complainant. Respondent’s resolving websites seek to impersonate Complainant and suggests that the websites are maintained, sponsored, or affiliated with Complainant. See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s previous use of the <bankofamericanfork.com> domain name to maintain a web directory was evidence of bad faith because the respondent presumably commercially benefited by receiving click-through fees for diverting Internet users to unrelated third-party websites).
Further, Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent has a history of abusive domain name registrations, which can be used as evidence of bad faith conduct in this matter. See TRAVELOCITY.COM LP v. Aziz, FA 1260783 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 16, 2009) (“These previous [UDRP] decisions demonstrate a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”)
Finally, the Panel cannot conceive of a use for the Disputed Domain Names by Respondent that would not constitute bad faith use under the Policy.
As such, Complainant has established the third element of the policy.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the following domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Claimant:
- <pnc-bank-online.com>,
- <pnc-bank-checking.com>,
- <pncbankpersonalbanking.com>,
- <pnc-online-banking.com>,
- <pncbank-personal-banking.com>, and
- <pncbank-online-banking.com> .
Kendall C. Reed, Panelist
Dated: July 14, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page