The United Nations Federal Credit Union v. haimin xu
Claim Number: FA1712001764638
Complainant is The United Nations Federal Credit Union ("Complainant"), represented by Michael Rott, New York, USA. Respondent is haimin xu ("Respondent"), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <wwwunfcu.org>, registered with DropCatch.com 1290 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 28, 2017; the Forum received payment on December 28, 2017.
On December 28, 2017, DropCatch.com 1290 LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <wwwunfcu.org> domain name is registered with DropCatch.com 1290 LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DropCatch.com 1290 LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the DropCatch.com 1290 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 January 2, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 22, 2018 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@wwwunfcu.org. Also on January 2, 2018, 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 January 26, 2018, 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 has used the UNFCU trademark since 1981 in connection with banking and financial services. Complainant owns a U.S. registration for the mark.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <wwwunfcu.org> through a privacy registration service in December 2017. The domain name resolves to a page containing what appear to be pay-per-click links to financial services providers. Complainant alleges that Respondent is using Complainant's unique acronym to confuse, mislead, and defraud the public.
Complainant contends on these grounds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's 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.
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 <wwwunfcu.org> is comprised of Complainant's registered mark with the addition of the generic term "www" and the ".org" generic top-level domain. Neither of these additions significantly diminishes the similarity of the domain name to Complainant's mark. See, e.g., United Nations Federal Credit Union v. Marcus Brown / Mbrown, FA 1752126 (Forum Nov. 1, 2017) (finding <onlineunfcu.com> confusingly similar to UNFCU); SAFE Credit Union v. Liaokaifeng, FA 1522816 (Forum Nov. 23, 2013) (finding <wwwsafecu.org> confusingly similar to SAFE CREDIT UNION). Accordingly, 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 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name corresponds to Complainant's mark and domain name, with the generic "www" prepended; and the only apparent use of the domain name is in connection with a website seemingly calculated to create and exploit confusion among Internet users and infringe upon Complainant's marks. See, e.g., SAFE Credit Union v. Liaokaifeng, supra (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests under similar circumstances).
Respondent has not come forward with any evidence of rights or legitimate 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 is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, 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 use of the domain name for a website comprised of links to Complainant's competitors, presumably generating clickthrough or referral fees for Respondent, is indicative of bad faith use under the Policy. Absent any evidence that the domain name was registered for some other purpose, the Panel infers that the name was registered in bad faith as well. See, e.g., SAFE Credit Union v. Liaokaifeng, supra (finding bad faith registration and use under similar circumstances). Respondent's use of a privacy registration service in an attempt to conceal his identity, though not itself dispositive, is a further indication of bad faith. See, e.g., International Trademark Ass'n, Inc. v. Roddi Dowpharma, FA 1763382 (Forum Jan. 15, 2018). 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 <wwwunfcu.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: January 29, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page