national
arbitration forum
DECISION
Citigroup Inc. v. domains Ventures
Claim Number: FA0612000874258
PARTIES
Complainant is Citigroup Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Paul
D. McGrady, of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2500, Chicago, IL 60601. Respondent is domains Ventures (“Respondent”), 136
Xiaoxue Road, Xiamen, Fujian, 361001, CN.
REGISTRAR AND
DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <citibusinesscreditcard.com>,
registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc.
PANEL
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.
John J. Upchurch as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 19,
2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of
the Complaint on December 21, 2006.
On December 29,
2006, Moniker Online
Services, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum
that the <citibusinesscreditcard.com>
domain name is registered with Moniker Online
Services, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the
name. Moniker
Online Services, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker Online Services, Inc. registration
agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by
third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (the "Policy").
On January 8, 2007,
a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the
"Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 29, 2007
by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to
Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on
Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts,
and to postmaster@citibusinesscreditcard.com
by e-mail.
Having received no response from
Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a
Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 2, 2007, pursuant to
Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the
National Arbitration Forum appointed John J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications
records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the
National Arbitration 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."
Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents
submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National
Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that
the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from
Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain
name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s
<citibusinesscreditcard.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITI
and CITIBUSINESS marks.
2. Respondent
does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <citibusinesscreditcard.com> domain
name.
3. Respondent
registered and used the <citibusinesscreditcard.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B.
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant, Citigroup Inc., holds trademark registrations
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the CITI and CITIBUSINESS marks (i.e., Reg. No.
1,181,467 issued on December
18, 1981 for the CITI
mark and Reg. No. 2,263,621 issued on July 20, 1999 for the CITIBUSINESS mark). Complainant has used the CITI and CITIBUSINESS marks for financial services,
including, but not limited to, banking, credit cards, and investment
consultation. Complainant owns more than
1,700 branches in approximately 100 countries worldwide
Respondent registered the <citibusinesscreditcard.com>
domain name on October
12, 2004. Respondent is
using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s
website displaying links to sites that directly
compete with Complainant’s services under the CITI
and CITIBUSINESS marks.
DISCUSSION
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."
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(e), 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 (Nat. Arb. 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.”).
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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established rights in the CITI and CITIBUSINESS marks through registration of
the marks with the USPTO. See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the
NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”);
see also Janus Int’l
Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) ("Panel decisions
have held that registration of a mark is prima
facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the
mark is inherently distinctive.").
Respondent’s <citibusinesscreditcard.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITI
and CITIBUSINESS marks because Respondent’s domain name uses Complainant’s
marks in their entirety and merely adds the term
“credit card.” The Panel finds
that this minor addition does not alter Complainant’s mark sufficiently to
negate the confusingly similar aspects of Respondent’s domain name under Policy
¶ 4(a)(i). See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH,
D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar.
23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in
dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic
word or term); see also Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298
(eResolution Sept.
22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s
domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an
obvious relationship to the complainant’s business); see also Brown &
Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that
the <hoylecasino.net> domain name is confusingly similar to the
complainant’s HOYLE mark, and that the addition of “casino,” a generic word
describing the type of business in which the complainant is engaged, does not
take the disputed domain name out of the realm of confusing similarity).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have rights
or legitimate interests in the <citibusinesscreditcard.com>
domain name. Complainant must make a prima
facie case and then the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does
have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel assumes that Respondent does not
have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name here because
Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA
118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission
constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively
shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has
not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate
interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also
Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that
once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to
provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the
domain name at issue”). The Panel will
evaluate the available evidence to determine whether Respondent has rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the <citibusinesscreditcard.com> domain name
to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s website displaying links to websites
offering competing services. Respondent’s use of the domain names to display links
to competing websites is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See eBay Inc. v. Hong, D2000-1633 (WIPO Jan. 18, 2001) (stating that
the respondent’s use of the complainant’s entire mark in domain names makes it
difficult to infer a legitimate use); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign
Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s
diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website
which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s
competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see
also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Lin Shun Shing, FA 205699 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that using a
domain name to direct Internet traffic to a website featuring pop-up
advertisements and links to various third-party websites is neither a bona
fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because the registrant
presumably receives compensation for each misdirected Internet user).
Additionally, Respondent has offered no evidence and no
evidence is present in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known
by the <citibusinesscreditcard.com>
domain name. Respondent’s WHOIS
information identifies Respondent as “domains Ventures.” Therefore, Respondent has failed to establish
rights or legitimate interests in the <citibusinesscreditcard.com>
domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003)
(stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is
‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Am.
Online, Inc. v. World Photo Video & Imaging Corp., FA 109031 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 13, 2002) (finding that
the respondent was not commonly known by <aolcamera.com> or
<aolcameras.com> because the respondent
was doing business as “Sunset Camera” and “World Photo Video &
Imaging Corp.”); see also Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA
96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have
rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent has registered and is using the <citibusinesscreditcard.com> domain
name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITI
and CITIBUSINESS marks, in order to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s
website displaying links to competing services.
The Panel finds that such use constitutes disruption and is evidence of
bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (Dec.
15, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name
<eebay.com> in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain name to
promote competing auction sites); see also AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad
faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a
website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services
similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet
user mistakes).
Respondent is using the <citibusinesscreditcard.com>
domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s website that displays
links to competing services for the assumed profit of Respondent. The Panel finds that because Respondent’s
domain name is confusingly similar to Complaint’s CITI
and CITIBUSINESS marks, Internet users may become confused as to Complainant’s
affiliation with the website.
Presumably, Respondent is profiting from this confusion. As such, Respondent’s use of the <citibusinesscreditcard.com> domain
name to display links to websites offering competing services constitutes bad
faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See TM
Acquisition Corp. v. Warren, FA 204147
(Nat. Arb. Forum Dec.
8, 2003) (“Although Complainant’s principal website is
<century21.com>, many Internet users are likely to use search engines to
find Complainant’s website, only to be mislead to Respondent’s website at the
<century21realty.biz> domain name, which features links for competing real
estate websites. Therefore, it is likely
that Internet users seeking Complainant’s website, but who end up at
Respondent’s website, will be confused as to the source, sponsorship,
affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website.”); see also Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior
use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to
Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from
the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”).
The Panel finds that
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the
ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <citibusinesscreditcard.com> domain
name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John
J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: February 14, 2007
