National Westminster Bank plc v. Quorium Solutions c/o Chidi Kingsley
Claim Number: FA0911001294752
Complainant is National
Westminster Bank plc (“Complainant”), represented by James A. Thomas, of Troutman Sanders LLP,
REGISTRAR
The domain name at issue is <natwest-bank.org>, registered with NamesDirect.
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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On November 23, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 14, 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@natwest-bank.org 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <natwest-bank.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NATWEST mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <natwest-bank.org> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <natwest-bank.org> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, National Westminster Bank plc, holds numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the NATWEST mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,241,454 issued June 7, 1983) and the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) for the NATWEST mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,021,601 issued December 3, 1973) in connection with a full range of financial services, including personal and business banking services.
Respondent, Quorium Solutions c/o Chidi Kingsley, registered
the <natwest-bank.org> domain
name 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.
Complainant asserts rights in its NATWEST mark through its holding of trademark registrations for the NATWEST mark with both the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,241,454 issued June 7, 1983) and the UKIPO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,021,601 issued December 3, 1973). The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the NATWEST mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registrations with the USPTO and the UKIPO. See Morgan Stanley v. Fitz-James, FA 571918 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29, 2005) (finding from a preponderance of the evidence that the complainant had registered its mark with national trademark authorities, the Panel determined that “such registrations present a prima facie case of Complainant’s rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also AOL LLC v. AIM Profiles, FA 964479 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 20, 2007) (“Complainant has established rights in the AIM mark through its use and federal trademark registrations for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <natwest-bank.org>
domain name is confusingly similar
to Complainant’s NATWEST mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent’s disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s NATWEST mark because Respondent’s disputed
domain name incorporates the entirety of Complainant’s mark, adds a hyphen, the
descriptive term “bank” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.org.” The Panel finds that the addition of a hyphen
is irrelevant for the purpose of determining confusing similarity under Policy
¶ 4(a)(i). See Health Devices Corp. v.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed 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 and Respondent has
failed to submit a Response to these proceedings. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case
that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed
domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the
burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate
interests.”); 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).
Nevertheless, the Panel will examine the record to determine if
Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).
The WHOIS information lists the registrant as “Quorium Solutions c/o Chidi Kingsley.” Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s mark or any variation thereof. Without 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 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 that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also 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).
Complainant alleges that Respondent was using the website accessed by the disputed domain name to use Complainant’s mark to fraudulently acquire personal information of Internet users who accessed the disputed domain name seeking Complainant’s services. The Panel finds that “phishing” for personal information does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (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 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 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).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent is using the confusingly similar disputed domain
name in order to intentionally attract Internet users to its website to “phish”
for users’ personal information by creating a strong likelihood of confusion
with Complainant’s NATWEST mark. The
Panel presumes Respondent then profits by using such information for fraudulent
purposes. Thus, the Panel finds
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith registration
and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Wells Fargo & Co. v.
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 <natwest-bank.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: December 31, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum