The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. Parry, james
Claim Number: FA0901001243179
Complainant is The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (“Complainant”), represented by James
A. Thomas, of Troutman Sanders LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <rbsbnksct.com>, registered with Ascio Technologies, 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.
Louis E. Condon as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 16, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 19, 2009.
On January 19, 2009, Ascio Technologies, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <rbsbnksct.com> domain name is registered with Ascio Technologies, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Ascio Technologies, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Ascio Technologies, 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 January 22, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 11, 2009 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@rbsbnksct.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 16, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Louis E. Condon 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 <rbsbnksct.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RBS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <rbsbnksct.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <rbsbnksct.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, was founded in 1727 and, today, is a worldwide institution in banking and investing. Complainant has offices on four continents with more than 140,000 employees. Complainant’s services include consumer and commercial lending, credit card services, investment and advisory services, real estate services, and a variety of other financial services. Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations throughout the world for its RBS mark, including its registrations with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) since 1996 (Reg. No. 2,004,617 issued February 28, 1996) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) since 2006 (Reg. No. 3,185,538 issued December 19, 2006).
Respondent registered the <rbsbnksct.com> domain name on November 22, 2008. The disputed domain name resolves to a website highly similar to Complainant’s own 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.
The Panel finds that registration of Complainant’s mark with
governmental trademark authorities, including the UKIPO and USPTO, establishes
Complainant’s rights in the RBS mark pursuant to 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 Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent’s <rbsbnksct.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The use of Complainant’s complete mark in conjunction with what appears
to be the abbreviation for bank (“bnk”) and
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <rbsbnksct.com> domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Based on the arguments made in the Complaint, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case in support of its contentions. See 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); see also Towmaster, Inc. v. Hale, FA 973506 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 4, 2007) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”).
As Respondent did not answer the Complaint, the Panel may assume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertions in this regard.”). However, the Panel chooses to examine the record in consideration of the factors listed under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website
holding itself out as being the website of The Royal Bank of
¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of
the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA
690796 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s use of
the <allianzcorp.biz> domain name to fraudulently acquire the personal
and financial information of Internet users seeking the complainant’s financial
services was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Capital One Fin.
Corp. v. Howel, FA 289304 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding
that using a domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that imitated
the complainant’s credit application website and attempted to fraudulently
acquire personal information from the complainant’s clients was not a bona
fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair
use).
Respondent’s WHOIS registration is evidence that Respondent
is not commonly known by the <rbsbnksct.com> domain name, in that the registrant is listed as “Perry,
james.” Without further evidence to the
contrary, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum
July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the
disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other
information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly
known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the
respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent registered and is using the <rbsbnksct.com>
domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). The similarity between Complainant’s commercial
website and the website that the disputed domain name resolves to demonstrates
that Respondent is attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users
seeking Complainant’s services. The
assumption by confused Internet users that Respondent’s website is somehow
affiliated with Complainant creates a sense of security in the Internet
consumer that will lead to the revelation of confidential information. Therefore, Respondent is taking advantage of
the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s
mark to lure Internet consumers to a site in order to profit from the goodwill
and long history associated with Complainant’s mark. See G.D. Searle &
Furthermore, Respondent is
engaging in a fraudulent phishing scheme by registering and using the <rbsbnksct.com> domain name to divert Internet users to its own
website displaying with Complainant’s mark and other information similar to
Complainant’s own website. Respondent
further offers online forms where Internet users may reveal personal and
financial information. Respondent’s
attempts to fraudulently acquire this information provides evidence of bad
faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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); see also Juno
Online Servs., Inc. v. Nelson, FA 241972 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <rbsbnksct.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Louis E. Condon, Panelist
Dated: March 2, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum