National Westminster Bank plc v. Cyndie Spiegel
Claim Number: FA0809001222642
Complainant is National
Westminster Bank plc (“Complainant”), represented by James A. Thomas, of Troutman Sanders LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <natwestbk.org>, registered with Network Solutions, LLC.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 2, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 2, 2008.
On September 2, 2008, Network Solutions, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <natwestbk.org> domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, LLC 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 September 4, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 24, 2008 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@natwestbk.org by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 2, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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:
The trademark on which this
Complaint is based is “NATWEST.”
Complainant National Westminster Bank plc (“NatWest”), founded in 1968,
is a leading financial institution based in the United Kingdom that offers a
full range of financial services, including personal and business banking
services and credit cards, to more than 7.5 million personal customers and
850,000 small business accounts. Owned
by The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (“RBS”), NatWest has more than 1600
branches and is part of the fifth-largest financial services group in the
world.
Complainant holds numerous
trademark registrations for its “NATWEST” mark (“Complainant’s Mark”).
Complainant’s “NATWEST” mark has been registered with the United Kingdom
Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) since 1973 and with the United States
Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) since 1983. Complainant has also registered its “NATWEST”
mark in the European Union Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
(“OHIM”) since 2006. Complainant uses
the mark “NATWEST” in promoting and providing, among other things, banking,
credit cards, financial planning and insurance services throughout the
An important part of Complainant’s
business today is its online banking business and services. Through NatWest’s secure online banking
gateway, accessed through its website at <natwest.com>, customers can,
among other things, view balances and statements, pay bills, make payments, and
move money between accounts. Complainant, individually and through its parent company,
RBS, also owns and uses the following domain names: <natwestb.com>,
<natwestbk-international.com>, <natwestbklondon.com>,
<natwestbank.org> and <natwest-bn.net>.
Complainant’s rights to the NATWEST mark have recently been recognized in prior UDRP panel decisions. See National Westminster Bank plc v Louise Short, FA 1152426 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 4, 2008) (Complainant established rights in the NATWEST mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i) by virtue of its numerous trademark registrations for the mark in the UKIPO, OHIM and USPTO.); National Westminster Bank plc v nat west, FA 993119 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 9, 2007) (“Complainant has established rights in the NATWEST mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i) by virtue of its numerous trademark registrations for the mark around the world.”); National Westminster Bank plc v Gregory Buening c/o Gregory Buening, FA 871066 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan 29, 2007) (“The Panel f[ound] that Complainant’s timely registration and extensive use of the NATWEST mark for over twenty years is sufficient to establish rights in the mark in accordance with Policy ¶4(a)(i).”).
As the foregoing indicates, and by virtue of its longstanding role in financial markets in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, its deep commitment to the provision of quality financial products and services, and its significant commitment to the marketing and advertising of its name and mark, Complainant has built up substantial goodwill in the “NATWEST” mark, and in marks derived therefrom.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s “NATWEST” mark because it fully incorporates Complainant’s Mark with the addition of the letters, “bk”, an abbreviation for “bank”, which corresponds to a service provided by Complainant under the mark. “A general rule under [ICANN] Policy ¶4(a)(i) is that a domain name is confusingly similar to a third-party mark where the domain name fully incorporates the mark and simply adds additional words that correspond to the goods or services offered by the third party under the mark.” Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. 0-0 Adult Video Corp., FA 475214 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 27, 2005) (finding the domain names <sonycdplayer.com>, <sonyreceiver.com>, and <sonyremote.com> confusingly similar to the complainant’s “Sony” mark); Yahoo! v. Zuccarini, FA 183997 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 20, 2003), (finding the domain names “yahoofiance.com” and “yahooemal.com” confusingly similar to the complainant’s “Yahoo” mark since the names fully incorporated the mark and added a misspelled term for a service provided by the complainant). Similarly, in this case, the addition of an abbreviation “bk” for “bank”, to Complainant’s Mark does not distinguish it from Complainant’s Mark because it (“bk” and “bank”) is a generic term describing the business of Complainant. TransOcean Bank & Trust, Ltd. v. Ojaruwedia, FA 158163 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2003) (holding that <transoceanbank.com> was confusingly similar to the mark “TRANSOCEAN”); Wells Fargo & Co. v. Bogucki, FA 147305 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 16, 2003) (“Respondent’s addition of the word “bank” to WELLSFARGO likewise fails to create a domain name that is distinct from the Complainant’s mark.”); The Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. TPB Financial, FA 105218 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 11, 2002) (finding that the domain name <prumericaprivatebank.com> confusingly similar to the complainant’s PRUMERICA mark because the addition of a term that describes the complainant’s business to the domain name does not significantly change the overall impression of the mark); PBS Privat Bank Schweiz v. Tuzen, D2001-1311 (WIPO Dec. 5, 2001) (finding that “the juxtaposition of the word ‘bank’ with these letters which changes the whole complexion of the domain name [<pbsbank.com>] from being one depicting anything at all to one connected with a banking institution.”); Citizens Fin. Group v. segil, FA 089770 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20, 2007) (holding the addition of the abbreviation “bk” in <charteronebk.com> was insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s “CHARTER ONE BANK” mark). In this case, the domain name <natwestbk.org> fully incorporates Complainant’s famous registered trademark, “NATWEST”, in which Complainant has built up substantial rights. Complainant’s Mark is the dominant and distinctive element in the Domain Name. The only deviation is that “bk”—an abbreviated term for the word “bank” corresponding to Complainant’s business—has been added. As such, the Domain Name strongly gives the impression that it is owned or sponsored by Complainant, and that it is associated with Complainant’s banking business and services.
Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, and given the fame of Complainant’s Mark, Complainant respectfully asserts that it has met its burden of establishing that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name that is the subject of this Complaint.
Respondent
has no rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant
has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its “NATWEST” mark,
or any variation thereof. Respondent
registered the Domain Name on April 7, 2008.
This was more than thirty years after Complainant first registered its
“NATWEST” mark. Respondent is trading on
the goodwill and reputation of Complainant by fully incorporating Complainant’s
Mark into the domain name and then using it to direct users to its own
commercial website. Any value the Domain
Name may have is derived solely by incorporating Complainant’s “NATWEST” mark. See Am. West Airlines v. N. Am.
Leasing, LLC, FA 0232956 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 18, 2004) (finding
that the domain names, including <americawestacations.com>, had value
only on account of the incorporation of the complainant’s mark, which the
respondent had utilized without authorization by the complainant).
Respondent has never used the Domain Name in connection with 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). Rather, the Respondent is currently using the Domain Name to redirect Internet users searching for Complainant to Respondent’s commercial website at <natwestbk.org>, where it is merely promoting the setting up of email account services. The page to which the domain name resolves is very rudimentary, consisting of a login page presumably to the user’s email account with a link to “Sign Up Now” for users who may be interested in starting their own email accounts. This type of use has been found neither in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name. In PerkinElmer Life Sciences Inc. v. Compana, LLC, FA124752 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov 26, 2002), for example, the Respondent alleged use of the domain name in an email business based on generic domain names. The panel, however, found that the Respondent’s actions in posting a job offering for an email service on a separate website and putting up a rudimentary “homepage” for an email service at the domain name at issue could all be accomplished in a few minutes and therefore did not amount to sufficient evidence to establish bona fide use and is doing nothing more than passively holding the name.
Indeed, in this case, Respondent has done the same as the Respondent in PerkinElmer. As indicated on the site, the pages are “powered” by Everyone.net. Everyone.net is a company that provides private-label email management services. A domain name owner can simply sign up for an account with Everyone.net, use the pre-designed template from Everyone.net, and instantly be offering e-mail addresses at the domain name without any need to do much of anything. And Respondent in this case did nothing else. The user manual for private-label customers of Everyone.net shows that its blank template is virtually identical to Respondent’s “homepage.” As in the PerkinElmer case, Respondent is doing little more than passively holding this domain name. See also Sydney Markets Ltd. v. Rakis, D2001-0932 (WIPO Oct. 8, 2001) (finding that Registrant’s website consisted of a “simple ‘mock up’ website consisting of about two webpages” which was “not adequate evidence to show that the Respondent has used, or made demonstrable preparations to use, the contested domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, or that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the contested domain name.”).
The Respondent in this case, however, is different from the Respondent in the PerkinElmer case in one important respect--Respondent in this case is using without permission Complainant’s well-recognized mark, NATWEST, to improve its chances of obtaining commercial benefit. As explained in a decision by the panel in Fondation Le Corbusier v. Mercado M., D2004-0723 (WIPO Nov. 11, 2004), offering email addresses incorporating a domain name using without permission a previously well-known mark of another is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. In that case, Respondent had operated a website under the name <lecorbusier.com>, which incorporates the pseudonym of Le Corbusier, a world famous Swiss architect. Respondent claimed to have operated the site to promote the works of Le Corbusier, but was also offering email accounts “@LeCorbusier.com” through the Everyone.net service. The panel concluded that such offering of email accounts constituted “commercial gain” and therefore could not be regarded as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See also Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. v. Hammerton and The Jimi Hendrix Fan Club, D2000-0364 (WIPO Aug. 15, 2000) (finding that advertising e-mail addresses incorporating the domain name <jimihendrix.com> derived from Complainant’s previously well-known mark “JIMI HENDRIX” without permission of Complainant to use such mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services). As explained above, Complainant’s mark is and has been well-known long before Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name. Accordingly, even if Respondent’s site was sufficient to show “use,” such use is neither bona fide nor legitimate or fair.
Furthermore, given that Complainant has registered trademark rights to the distinctive, well-known “NATWEST” mark, any actual use by Respondent of the Domain Name would infringe on Complainant’s trademark rights. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc and National Westminister Bank plc v. Nikita Soloviov, FA 0787983 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 3, 2006) (“[G]iven that Complainant has registered trademark rights to the distinctive, well-known “NATWEST” mark, any actual use by Respondent of the <natwest-banks.com> domain name would infringe on Complainant’s trademark rights.”). As a matter of law, no use by Respondent of the Domain Name could be legitimate or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Broadcom Corp. v. Ayers Int’l Group, Inc., FA 0112562 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2002) (recognizing that any actual use by Respondent of the <broadcom‑usa.com> domain name would infringe the complainant’s statutory rights in its BROADCOM trademark and that such resulting infringement foreclosed any possibility of a legitimate use by the respondent as a matter of law); Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft v. New York TV Tickets Inc. D2001-1314) (WIPO Feb. 12, 2002) (“Consequently, given the notoriety of the Complainant's Deutsche Bank Mark, any use which the Respondent would make of any domain name, as here, that incorporated the Complainant's Deutsche Bank Mark, or one confusingly similar thereto, would likely violate the exclusive trademark rights which the Complainant has long held in its mark.”). Accordingly, Respondent will not be able to use the Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Finally, there is no indication
that Respondent is commonly known by the name <natwestbk.org>. See Policy ¶4(c)(ii). To the contrary, Respondent registered the
Domain Name under “Cyndie Spiegel, which has no apparent relation to
Complainant’s Mark or to the Domain Name. (See
Exhibit A.) See Nike, Inc. v.
BargainName.com, FA 0496731 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 2, 2005) (pointing out
that the respondent had registered the domain name <nikezone.com> under
the name “BargainName.com” and noting that based on the Whois contact
information, one can infer that the respondent is not commonly known by the
name); Wells Fargo & Co. v. Ehostpros.com, FA 0386980 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Feb. 9, 2005) (finding the respondent lacked rights and legitimate
interests in the domain name where there was no evidence that the respondent
was either commonly known by the disputed domain name or was authorized to
register domain names featuring the complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark). See
Dell Inc. v. George Dell and Dell Net Solutions, D2004-0512 (WIPO Aug. 24, 2004) (finding that Respondent’s business has not
been commonly known by the disputed domain name when, “the Complainant has made
a substantial showing that the DELL mark is a well known or famous mark …, and
given the strength of the DELL mark, the Respondents’ use of the disputed
domain name seems calculated to falsely suggest to Internet users that the
Complainant is affiliated with the website.”).
Hence, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate
interests in the Domain Name pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(ii).
Complainant respectfully asserts that it has met its burden
of proving that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to
the Domain Name.
The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad
faith.
The “NATWEST” mark upon which Complainant relies is a registered trademark and well-known
throughout the world. In fact,
Complainant’s Mark has been registered in the
Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to
intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a
likelihood of confusion with Complainant as to the source, sponsorship,
affiliation, or endorsement of its website, and diversion of such users to its
commercial website, demonstrates that the registration and use of the Domain
Name was and is in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv). The Respondent is using the Domain Name to
redirect to Respondent’s commercial website which promotes the setting up of email
accounts – for Respondent’s financial gain.
See
Further, the Domain Name is obviously connected with the Complainant and Complainant’s products and services, and therefore its use by someone with no connection with the Complainant suggests “opportunistic bad faith”. Research in Motion Limited v. Picov, D2001-0492 (WIPO May 31, 2001); Parfums Christian Dior v. Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, D2000-0226 (WIPO May 17, 2000); Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondee en 1772 v. The Polygenics Group Co., D2000-0163 (WIPO May 1, 2000).
For these reasons, Complainant respectfully asserts that it has met its burden of proving that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, National Westminister Bank plc, was founded in
1968 and is a leading financial institution based in the
Respondent, Cyndie Spiegel, registered the <natwestbk.org> domain name on April 7, 2008. The disputed domain name redirects Internet users to a website that allows users to set up an e-mail account.
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.
Registration of a mark with the UKIPO generally confers
rights in that mark to a complainant pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Royal Bank of Scot.
Group plc v. TRB, FA
622345 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 22, 2006) (“The Panel accepts Complainant’s
registration of the THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND mark with the United Kingdom
Patent Office as evidence of Complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to
Policy ¶4(a)(i).”). Indeed,
previous panels have accordingly recognized Complainant’s rights in the NATWEST
mark based on its UKIPO registration. See Nat’l
Westminster Bank plc v. Westbrom, FA
1008190 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 25, 2007) (“The Panel finds Complainant’s
registration of its NATWEST mark with the UKIPO sufficiently establishes its
rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i).”). Accordingly, this Panel finds that
Complainant has established rights in the NATWEST mark pursuant to Policy
¶4(a)(i).
Respondent’s <natwestbk.org> domain name contains Complainant’s NATWEST mark in its entirety and adds the letters “bk” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.org.” Complainant alleges that the letters “bk” are short for “bank,” and Complainant’s ownership of its <natwestbk-international.com> domain name seems to support this argument. The word “bank” is completely descriptive of Complainant’s business, so adding the shorthand “bk” adds to the confusing similarity of the <natwestbk.org> domain name. Since the addition of the gTLD “.org” is irrelevant under an analysis of the Policy, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <natwestbk.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NATWEST mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Modern Props, Inc. v. Wallis, FA 152458 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2003) (“Notwithstanding the analysis by Respondent, ‘modprops’ is a contraction or shorthand for ‘Modern Props.’ ‘Mod’ cononotes [sic] ‘modern’ regardless of any other dictionary meanings, so the names are substantially similar in meaning.”); see also Nev. State Bank v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 204063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“It has been established that the addition of a generic top-level domain is irrelevant when considering whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar under the Policy.”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) satisfied.
Complainant alleges Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <natwestbk.org> domain name. Based upon the allegations made in the Complaint, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(ii), thus shifting the burden of proof to Respondent. 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). See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names.”); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name).
According to Complainant, Respondent is not commonly known
by the <natwestbk.org> domain name since she registered the domain
name under “Cyndie Spiegel.” The Panel
agrees since the WHOIS information supports Complainant’s allegations and
Respondent has not advanced further evidence she is commonly known by the
disputed domain name. As a result, the
Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <natwestbk.org>
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(ii).
See St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet
Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there is
no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent is commonly known by
the disputed domain name); see also Coppertown
Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089
(Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the
respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name
where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information,
suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s <natwestbk.org> domain name resolves to a website that allows Internet users to sign up for new e-mail accounts. This use is unrelated to Complainant’s business, but the Panel notes that Respondent did not have authorization to register a domain name confusingly similar to and indeed even containing Complainant’s NATWEST mark. In addition, the Panel finds Respondent presumably profits from this use of the disputed domain name, either directly or though collecting some kind of referral fees and possibly through acquiring personal information from Internet users through the e-mail accounts. Allowing third parties to have email addresses containing this domain name may promote fraud. In any event, the Panel finds Respondent’s use of the <natwestbk.org> domain name constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to a complainant’s mark is not a bona fide use under Policy ¶4(c)(i)); see also Black & Decker Corp. v. Clinical Evaluations, FA 112629 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2002) (holding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to commercial websites, unrelated to the complainant and presumably with the purpose of earning a commission or pay-per-click referral fee did not evidence rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Respondent’s use of the <natwestbk.org> domain name is unrelated to Complainant’s business. Nevertheless, Complainant offers a wide variety of services and consumers may be mislead to believe Complainant is expanding its services to include offering e-mail accounts to its customers. Third parties may want to acquire such email addresses for fraudulent purposes. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website and use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); see also AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent took advantage of the confusing similarity between the <theotheraol.com> and <theotheraol.net> domain names and the complainant’s AOL mark, which indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv)).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) 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 <natwestbk.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dated: October 16, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum