The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. Domain Admin c/o InTrust Domain Names
Claim Number: FA1009001347010
Complainant is The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc ("Complainant"), represented by James A. Thomas of Troutman Sanders LLP, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin c/o InTrust Domain Names ("Respondent"), Colorado, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <rbscredit.com>, registered with CURIOUS NET, 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 September 16, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on September 16, 2010.
On September 28, 2010, CURIOUS NET, INC. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <rbscredit.com> domain name is registered with CURIOUS NET, INC. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. CURIOUS NET, INC. has verified that Respondent is bound by the CURIOUS NET, INC. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On September 29, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 19, 2010 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@rbscredit.com. Also on September 29, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 21, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Respondent has submitted correspondence which has been taken into consideration.
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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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 <rbscredit.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RBS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <rbscredit.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <rbscredit.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group, is an international financial institution. Complainant offers a wide range of financial products and services and has been in operation since 1727. Complainant registered its RBS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,185,538 issued December 19, 2006).
Respondent registered the <rbscredit.com> domain name on March 31, 2010. The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring a hyperlink directory that includes hyperlinks to Complainant’s competitors in the banking industry.
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 must establish two requirements under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i); that it has rights in a trade or service mark, and that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the marks.
Complainant contends that it has established rights in the RBS mark based on its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,185,538 issued December 19, 2006). Registration with a federal trademark authority is sufficient to establish rights in a mark. See Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO); see also Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a trademark authority). Thus, the Panel concludes Complainant’s trademark registration of the RBS mark establishes rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <rbscredit.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RBS mark. The disputed domain name incorporates all of Complainant’s RBS mark while adding the generic term “credit” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The addition of a generic term and gTLD fail to distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. v. Credit Research, Inc., D2002-0095 (WIPO May 7, 2002) (finding that several domain names incorporating the complainant’s entire EXPERIAN mark and merely adding the term “credit” were confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark); see also Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”). Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <rbscredit.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RBS mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established.
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <rbscredit.com> domain name. Previous panels have found that a complainant making a prima facie showing in support of its allegations shifts the burden to the respondent to prove that it has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing and because Respondent failed to make a timely response, the Panel may assume that it does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <rbscredit.com> domain name. However, the Panel will examine whether the record shows Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the <rbscredit.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA 361190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (“Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint functions as an implicit admission that [Respondent] lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It also allows the Panel to accept all reasonable allegations set forth…as true.”).
Complainant alleges Respondent is not commonly known by the <rbscredit.com> domain name. Respondent has not alleged any evidence supporting a finding that it is known by the disputed domain name. The Panel finds no evidence in the record that would provide a basis for finding that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information does not contain any information furthering a finding that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant further alleges that it has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its RBS mark. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <rbscredit.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); 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).
The disputed <rbscredit.com> domain name resolves to a website that Respondent uses to post hyperlinks to websites of Complainant’s competitors in the banking industry. Complainant alleges that Respondent financially benefits from click-through fees associated with the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to operate a website featuring links to Complainant’s competitors is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <rbscredit.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to operate a portal with hyperlinks to various third-party websites, some of which may be in direct competition with a complainant, does not 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)); see also Expedia, Inc. v. Compaid, FA 520654 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <expediate.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to a website featuring links to travel services that competed with the complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established.
Respondent’s <rbscredit.com> domain name resolves to a website featuring hyperlinks, the majority of which resolve to Complainant’s competitors in the banking industry. Complainant alleges that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name disrupts its business because Internet users intending to find and utilize Complainant’s services may purchase the same services from its competitors as a result of Respondent’s use of the disputed <rbscredit.com> domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does disrupt Complainant’s business, which constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Tapia, FA 328159 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2004) (“Respondent is referring Internet traffic that seeks out the <aol.tv> domain name to a competitor’s news site. The Panel strongly finds that appropriating Complainant’s mark to refer customers seeking Complainant to Complainant’s competitors is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
The Panel surmises that Respondent receives click-through fees from the hyperlinks posted on its resolving website. Internet users searching for Complainant may find Respondent’s website instead because of Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar disputed domain name. Internet users may then become confused as to Complainant’s sponsorship of, and affiliation with, the disputed domain name’s resolving website and featured hyperlinks of Complainant’s competitors in the banking industry. Complainant alleges that Respondent benefits from this confusion through the receipt of click-through fees. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also 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).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <rbscredit.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: November 1, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page