Citizens Financial Group, Inc. v. Ron Alvarado
Claim Number: FA0701000897530
Complainant is Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James
A. Thomas, of Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein L.L.P.,
Post Office
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <citizensbankplc.com>, registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide.
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 National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 23, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 29, 2007.
On January 25, 2007, Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <citizensbankplc.com> domain name is registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide has verified that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide 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 31, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 20, 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@citizensbankplc.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 26, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <citizensbankplc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITIZENS BANK mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <citizensbankplc.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <citizensbankplc.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Citizens
Financial Group, Inc., is a provider of financial services, which includes
retail and commercial banking services. One
of Complainant’s services provides its
customers with online banking through which customers can, among other things,
view account balances and transfer funds.
In connection with its banking products and services, Complainant has
registered numerous marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”), including CITIZENS BANK (Reg. No. 2,482,203 issued August 28, 2001).
Respondent registered the <citizensbankplc.com> domain name on July 25, 2006. Respondent used the disputed domain name to host a fictitious banking site which displayed a “Citizens Bank” logo, contained login fields, and provided both a web page and telephone number to use for enrollment in online banking services. As of January 2007, the disputed domain name no longer resolves to an active website.
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.
Complainant has established rights in the CITIZENS BANK mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark
with the USPTO. See Vivendi Universal Games
v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003)
(“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights
in the BLIZZARD mark.”); see also 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.”).
Respondent’s <citizensbankplc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITIZENS BANK mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire mark and adds the form-of-business designation, “plc,” which is a well-known acronym for “public limited company.” The Panel finds that this change is not sufficient to distinguish Respondent’s disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks); see also Amazon.com, Inc. v. Dinoia, FA 536549 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 26, 2005) (finding that adding a common form of corporate designation to the domain name did not save <amazonltd.com> from confusing similarity to the complainant’s mark).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in the <citizensbankplc.com>
domain name.
Once Complainant makes a prima
facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii),
the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate
interests.
See 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”); see also 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).”).
Respondent’s failure to answer the Complaint raises a
presumption that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name. See Bank of Am.
Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (“Respondent's failure to respond not only results in its
failure to meet its burden, but also will be viewed as evidence itself that
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name.”). Nevertheless, the Panel will
examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate
interests under Policy ¶ 4(c); see
also BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v. Tweed, D2000-0418 (WIPO June 20,
2000) (“By not submitting a response, Respondent has failed to invoke any
circumstance which could demonstrate, pursuant to ¶ 4(c) of the Policy, any
rights or legitimate interests in the domain name”) .
Respondent has used the <citizensbankplc.com> domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITIZENS BANK mark, to imitate Complainant’s website and attempt to fraudulently acquire personal information, in what appears to be a “phishing” scheme. Such use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See HOPE worldwide, Ltd. v. Jin, FA 320379 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2004) (finding that a domain name that “is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, redirects Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s website, and is used to acquire personal information from Complainant’s potential associates fraudulently” does not fall within the parameters of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)); see also Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Iza, FA 245960 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2004) (finding that using a domain name to redirect “Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s billing website, and is used to fraudulently acquire personal information from Complainant’s clients,” is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
The disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website. The Panel finds that Respondent’s current non-use of the domain name also fails to establish any rights or legitimate interests in the <citizensbankplc.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Bloomberg L.P. v. Sandhu, FA 96261 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 12, 2001) (finding that no rights or legitimate interests can be found when the respondent fails to use disputed domain names in any way); see also Ziegenfelder Co. v. VMH Enter., Inc., D2000-0039 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding that failure to provide a product or service or develop the site demonstrates that the respondent had not established any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).
There is no information in the record to infer that
Respondent is commonly known as <citizensbankplc.com>. Moreover, the WHOIS record for the <citizensbankplc.com>
domain name lists “ron Alvarado” as the organization name. Therefore, the Panel finds that
Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See 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); see also Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent
has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David
Sanders.’ Given the WHOIS domain name
registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the
[<awvacations.com>] domain name.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent has used the <citizensbankplc.com> domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITIZENS BANK mark, to imitate Complainant’s website and to fraudulently retrieve personal and financial information from Complainant’s customers. Such use constitutes “phishing” and is evidence that Respondent registered and used the <citizensbankplc.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Iza, FA 245960 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2004) (finding that using a domain name that “is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, redirects Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s billing website, and is used to fraudulently acquire personal information from Complainant’s clients” is evidence of bad faith registration and use); see also Capital One Fin. Corp. v. Howel, FA 289304 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding bad faith registration and use because the respondent used the domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that imitated the complainant’s website and to fraudulently acquire personal information from the complainant’s clients).
Respondent used the <citizensbankplc.com>
domain name to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s banking
services to Respondent’s own website which imitated Complainant’s website. Respondent attempted to profit from the
goodwill associated with Complainant’s CITIZENS BANK mark. Such use of the disputed domain name is
evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See
Monsanto Co. v. Decepticons, FA 101536 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Moreover, the Panel finds that Respondent’s current inactive use of the <citizensbankplc.com> domain name constitutes registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith); see also Body Shop Int’l PLC v. CPIC NET, D2000-1214 (WIPO Nov. 26, 2000) (finding bad faith where (1) the respondent failed to use the domain name and (2) it is clear that the respondent registered the domain name as an opportunistic attempt to gain from the goodwill of the complainant).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <citizensbankplc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: March 8, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum