Invesco Ltd. v. Premanshu Rana
Claim Number: FA1705001733167
Complainant is Invesco Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by Mary Grace Gallagher of Alston & Bird, LLP, Georgia, U.S.A. Respondent is Premanshu Rana (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <invescoadvisory.com> and <invescotech.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 24, 2017; the Forum received payment on May 24, 2017.
On May 25, 2017, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <invescoadvisory.com> and <invescotech.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 June 1, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 21, 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@invescoadvisory.com, postmaster@invescotech.com. Also on June 1, 2017, 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 June 26, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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 offers investment services and has registered the INVESCO mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in furtherance of its business. (Reg. No. 1825441, registered Mar. 8, 1994). Respondent’s <invescoadvisory.com> and <invescotech.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s INVESCO mark because each domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic terms “tech” or “advisory”, plus a generic top level domain (“gTLD”), “.com.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <invescoadvisory.com> and <invescotech.com> domain names. Respondent is neither commonly known by the disputed domain names nor is Respondent using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent attempts to trade on the goodwill of the INVESCO marks by confusing Internet users as to the affiliation of Respondent’s website. Furthermore, the resolving website at the <invescoadvisory.com> domain name offers investment services which compete with Complainant’s business.
Respondent registered and uses the <invescoadvisory.com> and <invescotech.com> domain names in bad faith. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights at the time it registered the domain names. Respondent’s actual knowledge can be inferred from the fact that Respondent is the Director of a competing business in India, which is one of the locations in which Complainant operates. Moreover, the fact that Respondent is the Director of a competing business is alone enough to find that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent attempts to create confusion with the disputed domains for commercial gain.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Invesco Ltd., offers investment services and has rights in the INVESCO mark through registration with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1825441, registered Mar. 8, 1994). Respondent’s <invescoadvisory.com> and <invescotech.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s INVESCO mark.
Respondent, Premanshu Rana, registered the <invescoadvisory.com> and <invescotech.com> domain names on March 24, 2017.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <invescoadvisory.com> and <invescotech.com> domain names. The <invescoadvisory.com> domain name resolves to a website that offers competing investment services. The <invescotech.com> domain name resolves to a website that offers analytical and software design services.
Respondent registered and uses the <invescoadvisory.com> and <invescotech.com> domain names 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.”).
Complainant has rights in the INVESCO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration with the USPTO. See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (“There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and its vested interests in a mark.” ).
Both <invescoadvisory.com> and <invescotech.com> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s INVESCO mark because each domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic terms “tech” or “advisory”, plus a gTLD, “.com”.
Respondent is not commonly known by the <invescoadvisory.com> and <invescotech.com> domain names. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its INVESCO mark. The WHOIS information of record lists “Premanshu Rana” as the registrant of the domain names. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name); see Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).
Respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use. The <invescoadvisory.com> domain name resolves to a website that offers competing investment services. The <invescotech.com> domain name resolves to a website that offers analytical and software design services. Respondent is attempting to trade on the goodwill of the INVESCO marks by confusing Internet users as to the affiliation of Respondent’s websites. Use of a domain name to divert Internet users to a competing website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Furthermore, a general intent to divert Internet users by using a domain name for commercial gain, regardless of whether respondent is a competitor of complainant, is also not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent’s own website for commercial gain does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
Respondent is using the <invescoadvisory.com> domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business. Use of a disputed domain name to resolve to a website offering competing services is disruptive and shows bad faith registration and use. See Fitness International, LLC v. ALISTAIR SWODECK / VICTOR AND MURRAY, FA 1623644 (Forum July 9, 2015) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to operate a website that purports to offer health club related services such as fitness experts, fitness models, fitness venues, exercise programs, and personal training, all of which are the exact services offered by Complainant. Doing so causes customer confusion, disrupts Complainant’s business, and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Respondent’s use of the <invescoadvisory.com> domain name to attract Internet users for commercial gain shows bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See CAN Financial Corporation v. William Thomson / CAN Insurance, FA 1541484 (Forum Feb. 28, 2014) (finding that the respondent had engaged in bad faith under, by using a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its own website where it sold competing insurance services).
Respondent uses both the <invescoadvisory.com> and <invescotech.com> domain names to capitalize on the goodwill associated with Complainant’s mark for commercial gain. Therefore, Respondent has registered and is using these domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (“The Panel finds such use to constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), because [r]espondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the <metropolitanlife.us> domain name and Complainant’s METLIFE mark in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the mark.”).
Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the INVESCO mark when registering <invescoadvisory.com> and <invescotech.com> domain names. Therefore, Respondent registered and uses the domain names in bad faith. See Norgren GmbH v. Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft, FA 1599884 (Forum Feb. 25, 2014) (holding that the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant and its rights in the mark, thus demonstrating bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to purposely host links related to the complainant’s field of operation).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <invescoadvisory.com> and <invescotech.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: July 10, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page