Capital One Financial Corp. v. Thomas Franklin
Claim Number: FA1612001707930
Complainant is Capital One Financial Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by John Gary Maynard, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Thomas Franklin (“Respondent”), Canada
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <sourcecapitalone.com>, registered with Domain.com, LLC.
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 16, 2016; the Forum received payment on December 16, 2016.
On December 16, 2016, Domain.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <sourcecapitalone.com> domain name is registered with Domain.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Domain.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domain.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 December 19, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 9, 2017 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@sourcecapitalone.com. Also on December 19, 2016, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 17, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <sourcecapitalone.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAPITAL ONE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <sourcecapitalone.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <sourcecapitalone.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has registered its CAPITAL ONE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,992,626, registered Aug 13, 1996), used in connection with financial services.
Respondent registered the <sourcecapitalone.com> domain name on June 8, 2016, and uses it to compete with Complainant.
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.”).
Complainant has registered its CAPITAL ONE mark with the USPTO, which demonstrates rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Towmaster, Inc. v. Hale, FA 973506 (Forum June 4, 2007) (finding that “Complainant’s timely registration with the USPTO and subsequent use of the BIG TOW mark establishes rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <sourcecapitalone.com> domain name includes the entire CAPITAL ONE mark and adds the generic term “source” and the gTLD “.com.” Panels have held that the presence of the gTLD “.com” and generic terms in a disputed domain name does not distinguish the domain name from a complainant’s mark. See Whitney Nat’l Bank v. Easynet Ltd, FA 944330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (“The additions of generic words with an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business and a gTLD renders the disputed domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Thus, the Panel finds that the <sourcecapitalone.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAPITAL ONE mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
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 (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 (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 contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and is not authorized to use the CAPITAL ONE mark. The WHOIS information associated with the disputed domain name lists “Thomas Franklin” as the registrant, which does not resemble the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, based on the WHOIS information and the lack of evidence to the contrary. See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent’s domain name resolve to a website that offers loans and financial services similar to those offered by Complainant. Prior panels have held that using another’s mark in a domain name to host a website offering services that compete with a complainant is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a website that offered services that competed with those offered by the complainant under its marks). The Panel thus finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not fall within a permissible use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a website offering financial and loan services that competes with and disrupts Complainant’s business and is an attempt to confuse and attract Internet users for commercial gain. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by using the disputed domain names to operate websites that compete with the complainant’s business); see also ShipCarsNow, Inc. v. Wet Web Design LLC, FA1501001601260 (Forum February 26, 2015) (“Respondent’s use of the domain name to sell competing services shows that Respondent is attempting to commercially benefit from a likelihood of confusion. Therefore the Panel finds that a likelihood of confusion exists, that Respondent is attempting to commercially benefit from Complainant’s mark, and that Complainant has rights that predate any rights of the Respondent, all of which constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sourcecapitalone.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: January 20, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page