The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc and Isle of Man Bank Limited v. Alan Rosier
Claim Number: FA0903001250584
Complainant is The
Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc and
Isle of Man Bank Limited (collectively, “Complainant”), represented by James A. Thomas, of Troutman Sanders LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <rbsdgiital.com>, <rbsdigiatl.com>, <rbsdigitall.com>, <rbsdigotal.com>, <rbsdigtial.com>, <rbsdiigtal.com>, <rbsidgital.com>, <rbsddigital.com>, <rbsdiggital.com>, <rbsdigiital.com>, <rbsdigiral.com>, <rbsdigitaal.com>, <rbsdigitak.com>, <rbsdigitl.com>, <rbsdigitla.com>, <rbsdigitsl.com>, <rbsdigittal.com>, <rbsdigiyal.com>, <rbsdigutal.com>, <rbsdihital.com>, <rbsdiigital.com>, <rbsdiital.com>, <rbsdogital.com>, <rbsdugital.com>, <rbsfigital.com>, <rbssdigital.com>, <rbssigital.com>, <brsdigital.com>, <ebsdigital.com>, <rbbsdigital.com>, <rbdsigital.com>, <rnsdigital.com>, <rrbsdigital.com>, <rvsdigital.com>, <hwolb.com>, <bwolb.com>, <jwolb.com>, <nnwolb.com>, <nqolb.com>, <nsolb.com>, <nwilb.com>, <nwklb.com>, <nwokb.com>, <nwolbb.com>, <nwolg.com>, <nwolh.com>, <nwollb.com>, <nwolv.com>, <nwoolb.com>, <nwwolb.com>, <iomank.com>, <iombak.com>, <iomban.com>, <iombbank.com>, <iombnk.com>, <ipmbank.com>, <uombank.com>, and <wwwiombank.com>, registered with Onlinenic, 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 March 8, 2009, Onlinenic, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <rbsdgiital.com>, <rbsdigiatl.com>, <rbsdigitall.com>, <rbsdigotal.com>, <rbsdigtial.com>, <rbsdiigtal.com>, <rbsidgital.com>, <rbsddigital.com>, <rbsdiggital.com>, <rbsdigiital.com>, <rbsdigiral.com>, <rbsdigitaal.com>, <rbsdigitak.com>, <rbsdigitl.com>, <rbsdigitla.com>, <rbsdigitsl.com>, <rbsdigittal.com>, <rbsdigiyal.com>, <rbsdigutal.com>, <rbsdihital.com>, <rbsdiigital.com>, <rbsdiital.com>, <rbsdogital.com>, <rbsdugital.com>, <rbsfigital.com>, <rbssdigital.com>, <rbssigital.com>, <brsdigital.com>, <ebsdigital.com>, <rbbsdigital.com>, <rbdsigital.com>, <rnsdigital.com>, <rrbsdigital.com>, <rvsdigital.com>, <hwolb.com>, <bwolb.com>, <jwolb.com>, <nnwolb.com>, <nqolb.com>, <nsolb.com>, <nwilb.com>, <nwklb.com>, <nwokb.com>, <nwolbb.com>, <nwolg.com>, <nwolh.com>, <nwollb.com>, <nwolv.com>, <nwoolb.com>, <nwwolb.com>, <iomank.com>, <iombak.com>, <iomban.com>, <iombbank.com>, <iombnk.com>, <ipmbank.com>, <uombank.com>, and <wwwiombank.com> domain names are registered with Onlinenic, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Onlinenic, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Onlinenic, 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 March 18, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 7, 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@rbsdgiital.com, postmaster@rbsdigiatl.com, postmaster@rbsdigitall.com, postmaster@rbsdigotal.com, postmaster@rbsdigtial.com, postmaster@rbsdiigtal.com, postmaster@rbsidgital.com, postmaster@rbsddigital.com, postmaster@rbsdiggital.com, postmaster@rbsdigiital.com, postmaster@rbsdigiral.com, postmaster@rbsdigitaal.com, postmaster@rbsdigitak.com, postmaster@rbsdigitl.com, postmaster@rbsdigitla.com, postmaster@rbsdigitsl.com, postmaster@rbsdigittal.com, postmaster@rbsdigiyal.com, postmaster@rbsdigutal.com, postmaster@rbsdihital.com, postmaster@rbsdiigital.com, postmaster@rbsdiital.com, postmaster@rbsdogital.com, postmaster@rbsdugital.com, postmaster@rbsfigital.com, postmaster@rbssdigital.com, postmaster@rbssigital.com, postmaster@brsdigital.com, postmaster@ebsdigital.com, postmaster@rbbsdigital.com, postmaster@rbdsigital.com, postmaster@rnsdigital.com, postmaster@rrbsdigital.com, postmaster@rvsdigital.com, postmaster@hwolb.com, postmaster@bwolb.com, postmaster@jwolb.com, postmaster@nnwolb.com, postmaster@nqolb.com, postmaster@nsolb.com, postmaster@nwilb.com, postmaster@nwklb.com, postmaster@nwokb.com, postmaster@nwolbb.com, postmaster@nwolg.com, postmaster@nwolh.com, postmaster@nwollb.com, postmaster@nwolv.com, postmaster@nwoolb.com, postmaster@nwwolb.com, postmaster@iomank.com, postmaster@iombak.com, postmaster@iomban.com, postmaster@iombbank.com, postmaster@iombnk.com, postmaster@ipmbank.com, postmaster@uombank.com, and postmaster@wwwiombank.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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <rbsdgiital.com>, <rbsdigiatl.com>, <rbsdigitall.com>, <rbsdigotal.com>, <rbsdigtial.com>, <rbsdiigtal.com>, <rbsidgital.com>, <rbsddigital.com>, <rbsdiggital.com>, <rbsdigiital.com>, <rbsdigiral.com>, <rbsdigitaal.com>, <rbsdigitak.com>, <rbsdigitl.com>, <rbsdigitla.com>, <rbsdigitsl.com>, <rbsdigittal.com>, <rbsdigiyal.com>, <rbsdigutal.com>, <rbsdihital.com>, <rbsdiigital.com>, <rbsdiital.com>, <rbsdogital.com>, <rbsdugital.com>, <rbsfigital.com>, <rbssdigital.com>, <rbssigital.com>, <brsdigital.com>, <ebsdigital.com>, <rbbsdigital.com>, <rbdsigital.com>, <rnsdigital.com>, <rrbsdigital.com>, and <rvsdigital.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s RBS mark. Respondent’s <hwolb.com>, <bwolb.com>, <jwolb.com>, <nnwolb.com>, <nqolb.com>, <nsolb.com>, <nwilb.com>, <nwklb.com>, <nwokb.com>, <nwolbb.com>, <nwolg.com>, <nwolh.com>, <nwollb.com>, <nwolv.com>, <nwoolb.com>, and <nwwolb.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s NWOLB mark. Respondent’s <iomank.com>, <iombak.com>, <iomban.com>, <iombbank.com>, <iombnk.com>, <ipmbank.com>, <uombank.com>, and <wwwiombank.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ISLE OF MAN mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <rbsdgiital.com>, <rbsdigiatl.com>, <rbsdigitall.com>, <rbsdigotal.com>, <rbsdigtial.com>, <rbsdiigtal.com>, <rbsidgital.com>, <rbsddigital.com>, <rbsdiggital.com>, <rbsdigiital.com>, <rbsdigiral.com>, <rbsdigitaal.com>, <rbsdigitak.com>, <rbsdigitl.com>, <rbsdigitla.com>, <rbsdigitsl.com>, <rbsdigittal.com>, <rbsdigiyal.com>, <rbsdigutal.com>, <rbsdihital.com>, <rbsdiigital.com>, <rbsdiital.com>, <rbsdogital.com>, <rbsdugital.com>, <rbsfigital.com>, <rbssdigital.com>, <rbssigital.com>, <brsdigital.com>, <ebsdigital.com>, <rbbsdigital.com>, <rbdsigital.com>, <rnsdigital.com>, <rrbsdigital.com>, <rvsdigital.com>, <hwolb.com>, <bwolb.com>, <jwolb.com>, <nnwolb.com>, <nqolb.com>, <nsolb.com>, <nwilb.com>, <nwklb.com>, <nwokb.com>, <nwolbb.com>, <nwolg.com>, <nwolh.com>, <nwollb.com>, <nwolv.com>, <nwoolb.com>, <nwwolb.com>, <iomank.com>, <iombak.com>, <iomban.com>, <iombbank.com>, <iombnk.com>, <ipmbank.com>, <uombank.com>, and <wwwiombank.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <rbsdgiital.com>, <rbsdigiatl.com>, <rbsdigitall.com>, <rbsdigotal.com>, <rbsdigtial.com>, <rbsdiigtal.com>, <rbsidgital.com>, <rbsddigital.com>, <rbsdiggital.com>, <rbsdigiital.com>, <rbsdigiral.com>, <rbsdigitaal.com>, <rbsdigitak.com>, <rbsdigitl.com>, <rbsdigitla.com>, <rbsdigitsl.com>, <rbsdigittal.com>, <rbsdigiyal.com>, <rbsdigutal.com>, <rbsdihital.com>, <rbsdiigital.com>, <rbsdiital.com>, <rbsdogital.com>, <rbsdugital.com>, <rbsfigital.com>, <rbssdigital.com>, <rbssigital.com>, <brsdigital.com>, <ebsdigital.com>, <rbbsdigital.com>, <rbdsigital.com>, <rnsdigital.com>, <rrbsdigital.com>, <rvsdigital.com>, <hwolb.com>, <bwolb.com>, <jwolb.com>, <nnwolb.com>, <nqolb.com>, <nsolb.com>, <nwilb.com>, <nwklb.com>, <nwokb.com>, <nwolbb.com>, <nwolg.com>, <nwolh.com>, <nwollb.com>, <nwolv.com>, <nwoolb.com>, <nwwolb.com>, <iomank.com>, <iombak.com>, <iomban.com>, <iombbank.com>, <iombnk.com>, <ipmbank.com>, <uombank.com>, and <wwwiombank.com> domain names 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 is one of the world’s leading financing services groups. Complainant is the sole owner of its
subsidiary National Westminster Bank plc, which in turn wholly-owns Complainant
Isle of Man Bank Limited. Complainant
has registered its RBS mark with multiple governmental authorities including:
(i) the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) registered on
January 5, 1996 (Reg. No. 2,004,167); (ii) the European Union’s Office for
Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”) registered on March 23, 1998
(Reg. No. 97,469); and (iii) the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) registered on December 19, 2006 (Reg. No. 3,185,538).
Complainant has also registered its NWOLB and ISLE OF MAN marks with the UKIPO
(Reg. No. 2,438,953 issued
Respondent began registering the disputed domain names on
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 adequately set forth evidence of its rights in the RBS, NWOLB, and ISLE OF MAN marks through their respective registrations with the USPTO, the UKIPO, and/or the OHIM pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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 <rbsdgiital.com>, <rbsdigiatl.com>, <rbsdigitall.com>,
<rbsdigotal.com>, <rbsdigtial.com>,
<rbsdiigtal.com>, <rbsidgital.com>, <rbsddigital.com>,
<rbsdiggital.com>, <rbsdigiital.com>, <rbsdigiral.com>,
<rbsdigitaal.com>, <rbsdigitak.com>, <rbsdigitl.com>,
<rbsdigitla.com>, <rbsdigitsl.com>, <rbsdigittal.com>,
<rbsdigiyal.com>, <rbsdigutal.com>, <rbsdihital.com>,
<rbsdiigital.com>, <rbsdiital.com>, <rbsdogital.com>,
<rbsdugital.com>, <rbsfigital.com>, <rbssdigital.com>,
<rbssigital.com>, <brsdigital.com>, <ebsdigital.com>,
<rbbsdigital.com>, <rbdsigital.com>, <rnsdigital.com>,
<rrbsdigital.com>, and <rvsdigital.com> domain names contain
the RBS mark while either misspelling the RBS mark and/or misspelling the added
descriptive word “digital.” Moreover, each
of these domain names also contains the generic top-level domain “.com.” The inclusion of a gTLD is immaterial under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
See Isleworth
Land Co. v. Lost in Space,
SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent’s <hwolb.com>,
<bwolb.com>, <jwolb.com>, <nnwolb.com>, <nqolb.com>,
<nsolb.com>, <nwilb.com>, <nwklb.com>, <nwokb.com>,
<nwolbb.com>, <nwolg.com>, <nwolh.com>, <nwollb.com>,
<nwolv.com>, <nwoolb.com>, and <nwwolb.com>
domain names contain the NWOLB mark while misspelling the mark by one letter
and adding the gTLD “.com.” The Panel
reiterates its findings regarding these changes as noted above, and therefore
finds that these disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s
NWOLB mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Reuters Ltd., supra; see also Isleworth
Land Co., supra.
Respondent’s <iomank.com>,
<iombak.com>, <iomban.com>, <iombbank.com>,
<iombnk.com>, <ipmbank.com>, <uombank.com>,
and <wwwiombank.com> domain names contain the ISLE OF MAN
mark’s abbreviated form of “iom” in either correct or misspelled, the generic
descriptive word “bank” in either correct or misspelled form, and the gTLD
“.com.” The <wwwiombank.com> domain
name also contains the generic prefix “www.”
The Panel again restates its findings regarding the above changes and
their insufficient alterations.
Moreover, the addition of the prefix “www.” is equally inadequate in
thwarting a finding of confusing similarity.
Given that these disputed domain names resolve to Complainant’s website,
there is a presumed intent for confusing similarity by Respondent that
surpasses the otherwise close two-step analysis of the abbreviation of the ISLE
OF MAN mark and its subsequent misspellings in the <ipmbank.com> and <uombank.com> domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that these
disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ISLE OF MAN mark
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Reuters Ltd., supra; see also Isleworth Land Co., supra;
see Vance Int’l, Inc., supra; see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant has hereby set forth a sufficient prima facie case supporting its allegations, and thus Respondent receives the burden to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the 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 has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).
Respondent’s <rbsdgiital.com>, <rbsdigiatl.com>, <rbsdigitall.com>, <rbsdigotal.com>, <rbsdigtial.com>, <rbsdiigtal.com>, <rbsidgital.com>, <rbsddigital.com>, <rbsdiggital.com>, <rbsdigiital.com>, <rbsdigiral.com>, <rbsdigitaal.com>, <rbsdigitak.com>, <rbsdigitl.com>, <rbsdigitla.com>, <rbsdigitsl.com>, <rbsdigittal.com>, <rbsdigiyal.com>, <rbsdigutal.com>, <rbsdihital.com>, <rbsdiigital.com>, <rbsdiital.com>, <rbsdogital.com>, <rbsdugital.com>, <rbsfigital.com>, <rbssdigital.com>, <rbssigital.com>, <brsdigital.com>, <ebsdigital.com>, <rbbsdigital.com>, <rbdsigital.com>, <rnsdigital.com>, <rrbsdigital.com>, <rvsdigital.com>, <hwolb.com>, <bwolb.com>, <jwolb.com>, <nnwolb.com>, <nqolb.com>, <nsolb.com>, <nwilb.com>, <nwklb.com>, <nwokb.com>, <nwolbb.com>, <nwolg.com>, <nwolh.com>, <nwollb.com>, <nwolv.com>, <nwoolb.com>, and <nwwolb.com> domain names resolve to websites that duplicate Complainant’s corresponding banking websites and permit Internet users to submit their confidential and personal account information. There is no evidence within the record to suggest that there is any independent content or usage that would constitute 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). Indeed, this appears to be the quintessential case of a respondent passing itself off as a complainant, much to the detriment of Internet users and Complainant’s business. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in these disputed domain names 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”).
The <iomank.com>,
<iombak.com>, <iomban.com>, <iombbank.com>,
<iombnk.com>, <ipmbank.com>, <uombank.com>,
and <wwwiombank.com> domain names resolve to Complainant’s
website at the <iombank.com> domain name.
The Panel presumes Respondent engaged in such activity to obtain some
form of commercial revenue through the eventual redirection of Internet users
to Complainant’s website, albeit through Respondent’s own domain names. The Panel finds that this also fails as 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 Barnesandnoble.com
LLC v. Your One Stop Web Shop,
FA 670171 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2006) (finding that
the respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to divert Internet users
attempting to reach the complainant’s website and in breach of the
complainant’s affiliate program is neither a bona fide offering of goods
or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate non-commercial or
fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see
also Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S
Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum
There is no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS
domain name registration information, to conclude that Respondent is commonly
known by the disputed domain names. The
disputed domain names’ registrant is listed as “Alan Rosier,” which bears no
likeness to the disputed domain names.
Finally, Respondent alleges no license or permission to utilize
Complainant’s marks in any fashion, much less to register a confusingly similar
domain name whose corresponding website merely copies Complainant’s
website. Therefore, the Panel finds that
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Complainant has asserted that Respondent’s use of the <rbsdgiital.com>, <rbsdigiatl.com>, <rbsdigitall.com>, <rbsdigotal.com>, <rbsdigtial.com>, <rbsdiigtal.com>, <rbsidgital.com>, <rbsddigital.com>, <rbsdiggital.com>, <rbsdigiital.com>, <rbsdigiral.com>, <rbsdigitaal.com>, <rbsdigitak.com>, <rbsdigitl.com>, <rbsdigitla.com>, <rbsdigitsl.com>, <rbsdigittal.com>, <rbsdigiyal.com>, <rbsdigutal.com>, <rbsdihital.com>, <rbsdiigital.com>, <rbsdiital.com>, <rbsdogital.com>, <rbsdugital.com>, <rbsfigital.com>, <rbssdigital.com>, <rbssigital.com>, <brsdigital.com>, <ebsdigital.com>, <rbbsdigital.com>, <rbdsigital.com>, <rnsdigital.com>, <rrbsdigital.com>, <rvsdigital.com>, <hwolb.com>, <bwolb.com>, <jwolb.com>, <nnwolb.com>, <nqolb.com>, <nsolb.com>, <nwilb.com>, <nwklb.com>, <nwokb.com>, <nwolbb.com>, <nwolg.com>, <nwolh.com>, <nwollb.com>, <nwolv.com>, <nwoolb.com>, and <nwwolb.com> domain names constitutes an exercise of “phishing.” Phishing refers to the conduct of portraying a website as another’s authentic website, primarily designed to deceive Internet users into voluntarily divulging their private information, such as account or social security numbers. Respondent’s confusingly similar domain names and corresponding websites squarely fit within this definition, for Respondent’s websites provides ample fraudulent opportunity and deceptive imitation to convince Internet users to divulge their private information as it relates to Complainant’s business and accounts. Therefore, Respondent’s engagement in phishing constitutes wholly sufficient evidence of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Iza, FA 245960 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2004) (finding that using a domain name to redirect “Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s billing website, and is used to fraudulently acquire personal information from Complainant’s clients,” is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); 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 confusingly similar <hwolb.com>, <bwolb.com>, <jwolb.com>,
<nnwolb.com>, <nqolb.com>, <nsolb.com>, <nwilb.com>,
<nwklb.com>, <nwokb.com>, <nwolbb.com>, <nwolg.com>,
<nwolh.com>, <nwollb.com>, <nwolv.com>, <nwoolb.com>,
and <nwwolb.com> domain names contain misspelled versions
of Complainant’s marks. Thus,
Respondent’s has demonstrated its intent to manipulate the common typographical
errors of unsuspecting Internet users seeking Complainant, by rerouting them
via the disputed domain name so that Respondent may profit. This practice is commonly known as
“typosquatting,” and Respondent’s use of this method indicates that Respondent
lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See LTD Commodities
LLC v. Party Night, Inc., FA
165155 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
Respondent’s <rbsdgiital.com>, <rbsdigiatl.com>, <rbsdigitall.com>,
<rbsdigotal.com>, <rbsdigtial.com>,
<rbsdiigtal.com>, <rbsidgital.com>, <rbsddigital.com>,
<rbsdiggital.com>, <rbsdigiital.com>, <rbsdigiral.com>,
<rbsdigitaal.com>, <rbsdigitak.com>, <rbsdigitl.com>,
<rbsdigitla.com>, <rbsdigitsl.com>, <rbsdigittal.com>,
<rbsdigiyal.com>, <rbsdigutal.com>, <rbsdihital.com>,
<rbsdiigital.com>, <rbsdiital.com>, <rbsdogital.com>,
<rbsdugital.com>, <rbsfigital.com>, <rbssdigital.com>,
<rbssigital.com>, <brsdigital.com>, <ebsdigital.com>,
<rbbsdigital.com>, <rbdsigital.com>, <rnsdigital.com>,
<rrbsdigital.com>, <rvsdigital.com>, <hwolb.com>,
<bwolb.com>, <jwolb.com>, <nnwolb.com>, <nqolb.com>,
<nsolb.com>, <nwilb.com>, <nwklb.com>, <nwokb.com>,
<nwolbb.com>, <nwolg.com>, <nwolh.com>, <nwollb.com>,
<nwolv.com>, <nwoolb.com>, and <nwwolb.com>
domain names divert Internet users seeking Complainant to websites that
purport to belong to Complainant. That
such websites attempt to defraud these diverted Internet users highly suggests
that Respondent’s primary purpose and objective was to disrupt Complainant’s
operations for financial gain. Respondent
may fairly be described as a competitor of sorts of Complainant, in that it
acted in opposition to Complainant and to the detriment of Complainant’s
business. The Panel therefore finds that
Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iii). See Mission KwaSizabantu v. Rost,
D2000-0279 (WIPO June 7, 2000) (defining “competitor” as “one who acts in
opposition to another and the context does not imply or demand any restricted
meaning such as commercial or business competitor”); see also S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb.
Forum
All of the disputed domain names siphon Internet users seeking
Complainant’s business to either corresponding websites that blatantly attempt
to imitate Complainant and persuade these Internet users to disclose their
private banking information, or to Complainant’s own legitimate website for a
presumed referral fee. As for the domain
names leading to Respondent’s imitator websites, Respondent likely seeks to
obtain customer information for fraudulent purposes, calculated to result in
monetary gain. Thus, Respondent’s
registration of these disputed domain names and subsequent use has created the
prototypical likelihood of confusion as to the source, endorsement, and
affiliation of the disputed domain name and corresponding website. Similarly, the resolution of Internet users
to Complainant’s own website creates a similar, albeit distinct, likelihood of
confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent
has engaged in bad faith registration and use 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 Respondent’s engagement in a phishing venture via the <rbsdgiital.com>, <rbsdigiatl.com>, <rbsdigitall.com>,
<rbsdigotal.com>, <rbsdigtial.com>,
<rbsdiigtal.com>, <rbsidgital.com>, <rbsddigital.com>,
<rbsdiggital.com>, <rbsdigiital.com>, <rbsdigiral.com>,
<rbsdigitaal.com>, <rbsdigitak.com>, <rbsdigitl.com>,
<rbsdigitla.com>, <rbsdigitsl.com>, <rbsdigittal.com>,
<rbsdigiyal.com>, <rbsdigutal.com>, <rbsdihital.com>,
<rbsdiigital.com>, <rbsdiital.com>, <rbsdogital.com>,
<rbsdugital.com>, <rbsfigital.com>, <rbssdigital.com>,
<rbssigital.com>, <brsdigital.com>, <ebsdigital.com>,
<rbbsdigital.com>, <rbdsigital.com>, <rnsdigital.com>,
<rrbsdigital.com>, <rvsdigital.com>, <hwolb.com>,
<bwolb.com>, <jwolb.com>, <nnwolb.com>, <nqolb.com>,
<nsolb.com>, <nwilb.com>, <nwklb.com>, <nwokb.com>,
<nwolbb.com>, <nwolg.com>, <nwolh.com>, <nwollb.com>,
<nwolv.com>, <nwoolb.com>, and <nwwolb.com>
domain names clearly constitutes
bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), as it attempts to use
deception to artfully purloin the information of Complainant’s potential and
actual customers. See Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Iza, FA 245960 (Nat. Arb. Forum
May 3, 2004) (finding that using a domain name that “is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s mark, redirects Internet users to a website that imitates
Complainant’s billing website, and is used to fraudulently acquire personal
information from Complainant’s clients” is evidence of bad faith registration
and use); see also HOPE worldwide, Ltd. v. Jin, FA
320379 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2004) (finding that the respondent registered
and used the domain name in bad faith because it redirected Internet users to a
website that imitated the complainant’s website and was used to fraudulently
acquire personal information from the complainant’s potential associates).
The Panel finds that Respondent’s engagement in
typosquatting with regards to the <hwolb.com>, <bwolb.com>, <jwolb.com>,
<nnwolb.com>, <nqolb.com>, <nsolb.com>, <nwilb.com>,
<nwklb.com>, <nwokb.com>, <nwolbb.com>, <nwolg.com>,
<nwolh.com>, <nwollb.com>, <nwolv.com>, <nwoolb.com>,
and <nwwolb.com> domain names also constitutes evidence of
its bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Dermalogica,
Inc. v. Domains to Develop, FA 175201 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2003) (finding that the <dermatalogica.com>
domain name was a “simple misspelling” of the complainant's DERMALOGICA
mark which indicated typosquatting and bad faith pursuant to Policy 4 ¶
(a)(iii)); see also Zone Labs, Inc.
v. Zuccarini, FA 190613 (Nat. Arb.
Forum
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 <rbsdgiital.com>, <rbsdigiatl.com>, <rbsdigitall.com>, <rbsdigotal.com>, <rbsdigtial.com>, <rbsdiigtal.com>, <rbsidgital.com>, <rbsddigital.com>, <rbsdiggital.com>, <rbsdigiital.com>, <rbsdigiral.com>, <rbsdigitaal.com>, <rbsdigitak.com>, <rbsdigitl.com>, <rbsdigitla.com>, <rbsdigitsl.com>, <rbsdigittal.com>, <rbsdigiyal.com>, <rbsdigutal.com>, <rbsdihital.com>, <rbsdiigital.com>, <rbsdiital.com>, <rbsdogital.com>, <rbsdugital.com>, <rbsfigital.com>, <rbssdigital.com>, <rbssigital.com>, <brsdigital.com>, <ebsdigital.com>, <rbbsdigital.com>, <rbdsigital.com>, <rnsdigital.com>, <rrbsdigital.com>, <rvsdigital.com>, <hwolb.com>, <bwolb.com>, <jwolb.com>, <nnwolb.com>, <nqolb.com>, <nsolb.com>, <nwilb.com>, <nwklb.com>, <nwokb.com>, <nwolbb.com>, <nwolg.com>, <nwolh.com>, <nwollb.com>, <nwolv.com>, <nwoolb.com>, <nwwolb.com>, <iomank.com>, <iombak.com>, <iomban.com>, <iombbank.com>, <iombnk.com>, <ipmbank.com>, <uombank.com>, and <wwwiombank.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: April 29, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum