Citigroup Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation
Claim Number: FA0704000964679
Complainant is Citigroup Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Paul
D. McGrady, of Greenberg Traurig, LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <ciiticards.com>, registered with Enom, Inc.
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.
Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On April 25, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of May 15, 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@ciiticards.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
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 <ciiticards.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITICARD mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ciiticards.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <ciiticards.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Citigroup Inc.,
provides financial services to consumers and corporate customers
worldwide. Complainant has over 1,700
branches and 5,100 ATMs in approximately 100 countries. Complainant holds a trademark registration
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the CITICARD
mark (Reg. No. 1,024,861 issued Nov. 11, 1975).
Respondent, Digi Real Estate
Foundation, registered the <ciiticards.com> domain name on
Complainant cites several UDRP decisions in which Respondent
was found to have registered and used various trademark-related domain names in
bad faith. See Citigroup Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Found., FA 635605 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Mar. 21, 2006); see also NetZero,
Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Found., FA 832376 (Nat. Arb. Forum
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.
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), registration of a mark with an appropriate governmental authority such as the USPTO confers rights in that mark to Complainant. Since Complainant registered the CITICARD mark with the USPTO in 1975, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the CITICARD mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Expedia, Inc. v. Emmerson, FA 873346 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 9, 2007) (“Complainant’s trademark registrations with the USPTO adequately demonstrate its rights in the [EXPEDIA] mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Enter. Rent-a-Car Co. v. BGSvetionik, FA 925273 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 11, 2007) (“The Panel finds that Complainant’s timely registration [with the USPTO] and subsequent use of the ENTERPRISE mark for over 20 years sufficiently establishes its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <ciiticards.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s CITICARD mark in its entirety with the additions of an extra “i” within, an “s” at the end, and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The addition of one extra letter renders a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), and the additions of an “s” as well as the gTLD “.com” do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <ciiticards.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITICARD mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philipines, FA 877979 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (finding the respondent’s <microssoft.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s MICROSOFT mark because they differ by only one letter, and “such a small alteration is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Barnesandnoble.com LLC v. Your One Stop Web Shop, FA 670171 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2006) (finding that the <barnesandnobles.info> and <barnesandnobles.biz> domain names are confusingly similar to the complainant’s BARNESANDNOBLE.COM mark because the additions of the letter “s” and generic top-level domains to the dominant features of the complainant’s mark do not negate the confusingly similar aspects of the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <ciiticards.com> domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, and this Complainant is found to have established such facts to constitute such prima facie case, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist). Since Respondent has not responded to the Complaint, the Panel will examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant has alleged that Respondent is not commonly
known by the <ciiticards.com>
domain name. The WHOIS information
identifies Respondent as “Digi Real Estate
Foundation,” and the Panel can find no other evidence in the record
indicating that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel concludes that
Respondent is not commonly known by the <ciiticards.com>
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by
the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on
the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record); see also Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C.
v. Taylor, FA 173369 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent is using the <ciiticards.com>
domain name to reroute Internet users to websites advertising the financial
services of Complainant’s competitors.
The Panel finds that such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or
a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See 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 Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu,
FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2004) (“Respondent’s appropriation of the
SAFLOK mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not
constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent has engaged in a bad
faith pattern of registering and using trademark-related domain names,
including multiple domain names containing Complainant’s CITICARD mark or
related marks. Complainant cites several
UDRP decisions in which Respondent was found to have registered and used
various trademark-related domain names in bad faith. See Citigroup
Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Found., FA 635605 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006);
see also NetZero, Inc. v. Digi Real
Estate Found., FA 832376 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent is using the <ciiticards.com> domain name to reroute Internet users to websites advertising the financial services of Complainant’s competitors. This is likely to disrupt Complainant’s business by diverting potential customers to Respondent’s website. The Panel finds that such registration and use of the <ciiticards.com> domain name constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Svcs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) when the disputed domain name resolved to a website that displayed commercial links to the websites of the complainant’s competitors); see also Puckett, Individually v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent has diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
Respondent’s <ciiticards.com> domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITICARD mark, is likely to cause confusion among customers searching for Complainant’s financial services. Specifically, customers may become confused as to the affiliation, endorsement, or sponsorship of the competing services advertised by the links on Respondent’s website. Respondent presumably receives click-through fees for each misdirected Internet user, and is therefore attempting to commercially benefit from this likelihood of confusion between Respondent’s domain name and the goodwill associated with Complainant’s CITICARD mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the <ciiticards.com> domain name constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. 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.”); see also Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Labs., D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent's use of the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where similar services are offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that the complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the site).
Respondent’s <ciiticards.com> domain name slightly misspells Complainant’s CITICARD mark by adding an extra “i” within. In Dermalogica, Inc. v. Domains to Develop, FA 175201 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2003), the panel held that the <dermatalogica.com> domain name was a “simple misspelling” of the complainant’s DERMALOGICA mark which indicated typosquatting and bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Similarly, in The Vanguard Grp., Inc. v. IQ Mgmt. Corp., FA 328127 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 28, 2004), the panel concluded that “[b]y engaging in typosquatting, [r]espondent has registered and used the <vanguard.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).” Like the domain names in Dermalogica and Vanguard, Respondent’s <ciiticards.com> domain name can be characterized as typosquatting because Respondent is trying to benefit from a potential typographical error made by Internet users. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <ciiticards.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
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 <ciiticards.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: May 30, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum