Citigroup Inc. v. Park Minwoo c/o Bucheon Si Sosa-gu
Claim Number: FA0810001231874
Complainant is Citigroup
Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Paul
D. McGrady, of Greenberg Traurig, LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <citionline.com> and <citi-card-online.com>, registered with Korea Information Certificate Authority, Inc. d/b/a Domainca.com.
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.
James A. Carmody, Esq., 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. The Complaint was submitted in both Korean and English.
On November 4, 2008, Korea Information Certificate Authority, Inc. d/b/a Domainca.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <citionline.com> and <citi-card-online.com> domain names are registered with Korea Information Certificate Authority, Inc. d/b/a Domainca.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Korea Information Certificate Authority, Inc. d/b/a Domainca.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Korea Information Certificate Authority, Inc. d/b/a Domainca.com 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 Korean language 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@citionline.com and postmaster@citi-card-online.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 James A. Carmody, Esq., 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.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Korean language Complaint and Commencement Notification and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <citionline.com> and <citi-card-online.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITI and CITICARD marks, respectively.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <citionline.com> and <citi-card-online.com> domain names
3. Respondent registered and used the <citionline.com> and <citi-card-online.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Citigroup Inc., owns trademark registrations for the CITI mark (Reg. No. 1,181,467 issued December 8, 1981) and CITICARD (Reg. No. 1,423,239 issued December 30, 1986) mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Complainant’s provision of financial services under these marks is extensive, and includes banking services, insurance, mortgage, and other services. Complainant has also registered its marks with other governmental trademark authorities worldwide.
Respondent registered the disputed <citionline.com> and <citi-card-online.com> domain names on January 24, 2002 and September 4, 2006, respectively. The disputed domain names resolve to websites that display links and advertisements for Complainant’s competitors.
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’s registrations of the CITI and CITICARD marks with the USPTO are sufficient for Complainant’s rights in the marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding that the complainant’s federal trademark registrations for the CHEAPTICKETS and CHEAPTICKETS.COM marks were adequate to establish its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
The <citionline.com> domain name differs from Complainant’s CITI mark in the following ways: (1) the generic term “online” has been added; and (2) the generic top-level domain “.com” has been added. The Panel finds that neither addition creates a meaningful distinction under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), and that therefore the <citionline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITI mark. See 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.”); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Domain Depot, FA 96854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2001) (finding the <broadcomonline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s BROADCOM mark).
The <citi-card-online.com>
domain name differs from Complainant’s CITI mark in the following ways: (1)
the generic term “online” has been added; (2) the generic top-level domain
“.com” has been added; and (3) hyphens have been added. The Panel has already determined that the
addition of the generic term “online” and the gTLD is insufficient in creating
a meaningful distinction. See
The Panel concludes that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied with respect to both disputed domain names.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Based upon the allegations made in the Complaint, the Panel finds that 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 presumes that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). However, the Panel in its discretion chooses to examine the record to determine whether Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests pursuant to the factors outlined in 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).
The WHOIS information for both disputed domain names lists Respondent as “Park Minwoo c/o Bucheon Si Sosa-gu.” Moreover, Complainant alleges that it has never granted license, permission, or authorization for Respondent to use Complainant’s marks. Therefore, without evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also Educ. Broad. Corp. v. DomainWorks Inc., FA 882172 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 18, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <thirteen.com> domain name based on all evidence in the record, and the respondent did not counter this argument in its response).
Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to websites that
advertise the financial services of Complainant’s direct competitors. The Panel infers that Respondent receives
referral fees for each re-directed Internet user, and that therefore Respondent
has failed to created a bona fide offering of goods or services under
Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair
use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (concluding that using a confusingly similar
domain name to divert Internet users to competing websites does not represent 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 also Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA
877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that the respondent was not
using the <tesco-finance.com> domain name in connection with a bona
fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair
use by maintaining a web page with misleading links to the complainant’s competitors
in the financial services industry).
The Panel concludes that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) is satisfied.
Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to websites that promote Complainant’s direct competitors. The Panel infers that Respondent primarily intended to disrupt Complainant’s business to accrue referral fees based on such advertisements, which is evidence that Respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent used the disputed domain name to operate a commercial search engine with links to the complainant’s competitors); see also Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assoc., FA 914854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (holding that where the respondent’s website featured hyperlinks to competing websites and included a link to the complainant’s website, the respondent’s use of the <redeemaamiles.com> domain name constituted disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
The Panel also finds that Respondent intentionally created a
likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation or endorsement of the
disputed domain names and their corresponding websites in order to obtain
commercial benefit via referral fee revenue.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent engaged in bad faith
registration and use under 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 Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is
using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to
competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent
presumably receives referral fees. Such
use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration
and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
The Panel concludes that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is 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 <citionline.com> and <citi-card-online.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: December 16, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum