Coutts & Company and The Royal Bank of Scotland Goup plc v. Coutts Capital
Claim Number: FA0810001231769
Complainant is Coutts & Company and The Royal
Bank of Scotland plc (“Complainant”),
represented by James A. Thomas, of Troutman Sanders LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <couttscapital.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 30, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 31, 2008.
On October 31, 2008, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <couttscapital.com> domain name is registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Godaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, 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 November 12, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 2, 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@couttscapital.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 8, 2008, 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <couttscapital.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COUTTS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <couttscapital.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <couttscapital.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Coutts & Company and The Royal Bank of
Scotland Group plc, with Coutts & Company founded in 1822, is a leading
financial institution based in the
Respondent registered the <couttscapital.com> domain name on September 1, 2008. The disputed domain name resolves to a website of a financial institution. This corresponding website is similar in appearance to Complainant’s website and offers competing services to that of Complainant’s services.
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.
The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently established its rights in the COUTTS mark because it holds a registration of the mark 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 <couttscapital.com> domain name contains Complainant’s entire mark and merely adds the generic term “capital,” which relates to Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that the addition of this generic term does not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark for the purposes of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Oki Data Ams., Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001) (“[T]he fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish identity [sic] or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks”); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, FA 206399 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 15, 2003) (finding that the addition of the term “assurance,” to the complainant’s AIG mark failed to sufficiently differentiate the name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the appended term related directly to the complainant’s business).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Initially, Complainant must make a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <couttscapital.com> domain name. Then the burden shifts to Respondent and Respondent must establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently made its prima facie showing under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”); 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).”).
The
Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to respond in the proceeding will be
viewed as evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the
<couttscapital.com>
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.”); see also Am. Online,
Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or
legitimate interests where the respondent fails to respond).
Respondent is using the <couttscapital.com> domain name and its corresponding website that mimic’s Complainant’s website to offer competing services to that of Complainant. The Panel finds that these activities are not 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). Respondent is passing itself off as Complainant, at the expense of Internet users and Complainant’s business. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant’s mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Vivendi Universal Games v. Ballard, FA 146621 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2002) (stating that where the respondent copied the complainant’s website in order to steal account information from the complainant’s customers, that the respondent’s “exploitation of the goodwill and consumer trust surrounding the BLIZZARD NORTH mark to aid in its illegal activities is prima facie evidence of a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”).
Furthermore, because of Complainant’s long history and
goodwill attained through its use of its COUTTS mark, there must be strong
evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the <couttscapital.com> domain name. Respondent has not submitted any evidence to
suggest that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name; therefore,
without any evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that Respondent is not
commonly known by the <couttscapital.com>
domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Cimock, FA 126829 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 13, 2003) (“Due to the fame of Complainant’s mark there must be strong
evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name in order
to find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
However, there is no evidence on record, and Respondent has not come
forward with any proof to establish that it is commonly known as CELEBREXRX or
<celebrexrx.com>.”); see also Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C. v.
Taylor, FA 173369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept.
25, 2003) (finding that without demonstrable evidence to support the assertion
that a respondent is commonly known by a domain name, the assertion must be rejected).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent
is using the confusingly similar <couttscapital.com>
domain name to divert
Internet users to a competing website.
The Panel finds this diversion to constitute a disruption of
Complainant’s business and therefore constitutes evidence of Respodnent’s bad
faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent registered
a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert Internet
users to a competitor's website. It is a reasonable inference that Respondent's
purpose of registration and use was to either disrupt or create confusion for
Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and]
(iv).”); see also S. Exposure v.
S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding the
respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that
competes with the complainant’s business).
In addition, Respondent
is using Complainant’s mark in its confusingly similar <couttscapital.com> domain name to
offer competing services to that of Complainant’s services. Respondent likely seeks to obtain information
for fraudulent purposes, calculated to result in monetary gain. Thus, Respondent’s registration and use of
the disputed domain name has created a likelihood of confusion as to
Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name and corresponding website. The Panel finds that this use of a
confusingly similar domain name in a commercial manner creates a likelihood of
confusion as to Complainant’s endorsement or affiliation with the disputed
domain name and corresponding website, and is evidence of bad faith
registration and used under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith,
279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. 2002) ("While an intent to
confuse consumers is not required for a finding of trademark infringement,
intent to deceive is strong evidence of a likelihood of confusion."); see also Perot Sys. Corp. v.
Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is
obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a
likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain).
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 <couttscapital.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: December 22, 2008
National
Arbitration Forum