Discover Financial Services v. Muhammad Zuliman
Claim Number: FA1611001704356
Complainant is Discover Financial Services ("Complainant"), represented by Paul D. McGrady of Winston & Strawn, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Muhammad Zuliman ("Respondent"), Indonesia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <securediscover.com>, registered with ENOM, INC.
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 November 22, 2016; the Forum received payment on November 22, 2016.
On November 26, 2016, ENOM, INC. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <securediscover.com> domain name is registered with ENOM, INC. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. ENOM, INC. has verified that Respondent is bound by the ENOM, INC. 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 November 30, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 20, 2016 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@securediscover.com. Also on November 30, 2016, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 27, 2016, 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 a leading credit card issuer and electronic payment services company. Complainant uses the DISCOVER mark in connection with credit card services, loans, and other financial products and services that are advertised and promoted around the world. The mark is registered in the United States and elsewhere. Complainant claims that its mark is famous and distinctive, and notes that previous panels have so found.
The disputed domain name <securediscover.com> was registered through a privacy registration service in August 2016. The domain name redirects to Complainant's own website at <discover.com>. Complainant states that the domain name has been used in an attempt to take over customers' accounts for fraudulent purposes. Complainant states further that it has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use its mark, and that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. On these grounds Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed 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 is being 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(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 (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 <securediscover.com> combines Complainant's well-known registered mark with the generic term "secure" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark for purposes of the Policy. See, e.g., Discover Financial Services v. adilizer.com, FA 1692389 (Forum Oct. 10, 2016) (finding <financesdiscover.com> confusingly similar to DISCOVER); Discover Financial Services v. Dedi Kusnandar / Discover Server Mail, FA 1679773 (Forum July 28, 2016) (finding <maildiscover.com> confusingly similar to DISCOVER); Webster Financial Corp. v. subject to dispute, FA 1360197 (Forum Feb. 21, 2011) (finding <securehsabank.com> confusingly similar to HSA BANK); Bank of America Corp. v. Nobuyuki Takahashi, FA 197930 (Forum Nov. 4, 2003) (finding <securebankofamerica.com> confusingly similar to BANK OF AMERICA). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's registered DISCOVER mark.
Under the Policy, Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
Respondent registered a domain name combining Complainant's mark with a generic term relating to Complainant's business. The domain name is being redirected to Complainant's own website, and may have been used in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See Discover Financial Services v. Dedi Kusnandar / Discover Server Mail, 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 any 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 registered a domain name that combines Complainant's mark with a generic term associated with Complainant's business, and has caused the domain name to redirect Internet users to Complainant's own website. Under the circumstances, it appears likely that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in an attempt to phish for personal information of Complainant's customers or other Internet users. See Discover Financial Services v. Dedi Kusnandar / Discover Server Mail, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances). Respondent's use of a private registration service in an attempt to conceal his identity lends additional support to this inference. See id. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <securediscover.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: January 3, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page