Wells Fargo & Company v. Zhichao Yang
Claim Number: FA1212001477756
Complainant is Wells Fargo & Company (“Complainant”), represented by Felicia J. Boyd of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Zhichao Yang (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <weelsfarg.com>, <wellafago.com>, <wellafarg.com>, <wellfardo.com>, <wellfarggo.com>, <wellfargocard.com>, <wellfatgo.com>, <wellsago.com>, <wellsfagp.com>, <wellsfargodealerser.com>, <wellsfargodealershipsservices.com>, <wellsfargodealservice.com>, <wellsfargofincial.com>, <wellsfargogo.com>, <wellsfargow.com>, <wellsforge.com>, <wellsfrag.com>, <wellsfrg.com>, <wellsfrgorewards.com>, <wellsgarg.com>, <wellsvfargo.com>, <wellwargo.com>, <welsafrgo.com>, <welsfarog.com>, <welslfargodealerservices.com>, <welssfrago.com>, <wolsfargo.com>, <wwwweelsfargo.com>, <wwwwellscargo.com>, <wwwwellsfargoonline.com>, and <wwwwellsfaro.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 28, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on December 31, 2012.
On January 2, 2013, GoDaddy.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <weelsfarg.com>, <wellafago.com>, <wellafarg.com>, <wellfardo.com>, <wellfarggo.com>, <wellfargocard.com>, <wellfatgo.com>, <wellsago.com>, <wellsfagp.com>, <wellsfargodealerser.com>, <wellsfargodealershipsservices.com>, <wellsfargodealservice.com>, <wellsfargofincial.com>, <wellsfargogo.com>, <wellsfargow.com>, <wellsforge.com>, <wellsfrag.com>, <wellsfrg.com>, <wellsfrgorewards.com>, <wellsgarg.com>, <wellsvfargo.com>, <wellwargo.com>, <welsafrgo.com>, <welsfarog.com>, <welslfargodealerservices.com>, <welssfrago.com>, <wolsfargo.com>, <wwwweelsfargo.com>, <wwwwellscargo.com>, <wwwwellsfargoonline.com>, and <wwwwellsfaro.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com 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 January 8, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 28, 2013 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@weelsfarg.com, postmaster@wellafago.com, postmaster@wellafarg.com, postmaster@wellfardo.com, postmaster@wellfarggo.com, postmaster@wellfargocard.com, postmaster@wellfatgo.com, postmaster@wellsago.com, postmaster@wellsfagp.com, postmaster@wellsfargodealerser.com, postmaster@wellsfargodealershipsservices.com, postmaster@wellsfargodealservice.com, postmaster@wellsfargofincial.com, postmaster@wellsfargogo.com, postmaster@wellsfargow.com, postmaster@wellsforge.com, postmaster@wellsfrag.com, postmaster@wellsfrg.com, postmaster@wellsfrgorewards.com, postmaster@wellsgarg.com, postmaster@wellsvfargo.com, postmaster@wellwargo.com, postmaster@welsafrgo.com, postmaster@welsfarog.com, postmaster@welslfargodealerservices.com, postmaster@welssfrago.com, postmaster@wolsfargo.com, postmaster@wwwweelsfargo.com, postmaster@wwwwellscargo.com, postmaster@wwwwellsfargoonline.com, and postmaster@wwwwellsfaro.com. Also on January 8, 2013, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 January 31, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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" 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a timely Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the WELLS FARGO family of marks, used for decades in connection with financial services. Complainant holds various trademark registrations with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), including:
§ WELLS FARGO mark for banking and trust services (Reg. No. 779,187 registered Oct. 27, 1964)
§ WELLS FARGO mark for real estate brokerage (Reg. No. 1,167,626 registered on Sept. 1, 1981)
§ WELLS FARGO mark for lending services (Reg. No. 3,810,870 registered on June 29, 2010)
§ WELLS FARGO ONLINE (Reg. No. 3,320,784 registered on Oct. 23, 2007)
§ WELLS FARGO REWARDS (Reg. No. 1,136,406 registered on May
27, 1980)
Respondent’s disputed domain names redirect Internet users to search engines and advertising links resolving to competing banking and financial services.
Respondent’s <wellsfargofincial.com> domain name resolves to a website that attempts to download a known virus onto Internet users computers.
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."
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.
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.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has established its rights in the WELLS FARGO mark through registration with the USPTO, even though Respondent does not reside in the United States. Previous panels have found that the registration of a mark with the USPTO establishes a complainant’s rights in its marks. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (determining that the complainant’s trademark registrations with the USPTO 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 and it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to the WELLS FARGO marks as well as Complainant’s <wellsfargo.com>, <wellsfargoonline.com>, <wellsfargodealerservices.com>, <wellsfargofinancial.org>, and <wellsfargocard.com> domain names. Respondent is using the WELLS FARGO mark as the distinctive portion of the domain names in dispute. Some of the domain names add the prefix “www,” which does not distinguish the domain name from the mark. See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. EOS1\EOS-1, Inc., FA 493110 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 15, 2005) (“Respondent’s <www-sony.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SONY mark, as the domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark and adds a “www” prefix, a hyphen, and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”).
Respondent’s <weelsfarg.com>, <wellafago.com>, <wellafarg.com>, <wellfardo.com>, <wellfarggo.com>, <wellfatgo.com>, <wellsago.com>, <wellsfagp.com>, <wellsfargow.com>, <wellsforge.com>, <wellsfrag.com>, <wellsfrg.com>, <wellsgarg.com>, <wellsvfargo.com>, <wellwargo.com>, <welsafrgo.com>, <welsfarog.com>, <welssfrago.com>, <wolsfargo.com>, <wwwweelsfargo.com>, <wwwwellscargo.com>, and <wwwwellsfaro.com> domain names all constitute a misspelling of Complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark. Previous panels have held that a respondent does not distinguish its domain name from a mark by merely misspelling a complainant’s mark. See Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks).
The Panel notes that the domain names also remove spacing from the WELLS FARGO mark and add the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” changes that are irrelevant under the policy. See Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the elimination of spaces between terms and the addition of a gTLD do not establish distinctiveness from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The Panel therefore concludes that the <weelsfarg.com>, <wellafago.com>, <wellafarg.com>, <wellfardo.com>, <wellfarggo.com>, <wellfatgo.com>, <wellsago.com>, <wellsfagp.com>, <wellsfargow.com>, <wellsforge.com>, <wellsfrag.com>, <wellsfrg.com>, <wellsgarg.com>, <wellsvfargo.com>, <wellwargo.com>, <welsafrgo.com>, <welsfarog.com>, <welssfrago.com>, <wolsfargo.com>, <wwwweelsfargo.com>, <wwwwellscargo.com>, and <wwwwellsfaro.com> domain names are confusingly similar to the WELLS FARGO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent’s <wellfargocard.com>, <wellsfargogo.com>, <wellsfargodealerser.com>, <wellsfargodealershipsservices.com>, <wellsfargodealservice.com>, <wellsfargofincial.com>, and <welslfargodealerservices.com> domain names all add either a descriptive or generic word to Complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark. Previous panels have found the additions of words to a registered mark to be irrelevant in a confusingly similar analysis, especially when those words are either generic or merely descriptive of the type of business conducted under complainant’s mark. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, FA 206399 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 15, 2003) (finding that the addition of the term “assurance,” to the complainant’s AIG mark failed to sufficiently differentiate the name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the appended term related directly to the complainant’s business); see also Am. Online Inc. v. Neticq.com Ltd., D2000-1606 (WIPO Feb. 12, 2001) (finding that the addition of the generic word “Net” to the complainant’s ICQ mark, makes the <neticq.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark). The Panel notes that the <wellfargocard.com> and <welslfargodealerservices.com> domain names also feature a misspelling of the WELLS FARGO mark. The Panel finds that the <wellfargocard.com>, <wellsfargogo.com>, <wellsfargodealerser.com>, <wellsfargodealershipsservices.com>, <wellsfargodealservice.com>, <wellsfargofincial.com>, and <welslfargodealerservices.com> domain names are confusingly similar to the WELLS FARGO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent’s <wellsfrgorewards.com> domain name is a simple misspelling of Complainant’s WELLS FARGO REWARDS mark and fails to distinguish the domain name from the mark. See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive). The removal of the spaces in the WELLS FARGO REWARDS mark and the addition of the gTLD “.com” are irrelevant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the elimination of spaces between terms and the addition of a gTLD do not establish distinctiveness from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The Panel finds that the <wellsfrgorewards.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the WELLS FARGO REWARDS mark.
Respondent’s <wwwwellsfargoonline.com> domain name is likewise a simple misspelling of Complainant’s WELLS FARGO ONLINE mark. The addition of “www” and a gTLD to the mark, and the elimination of spaces, do not differentiate the domain name from the mark. See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. EOS1\EOS-1, Inc., FA 493110 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 15, 2005) (“Respondent’s <www-sony.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SONY mark, as the domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark and adds a “www” prefix, a hyphen, and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”); Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the elimination of spaces between terms and the addition of a gTLD do not establish distinctiveness from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The Panel thus finds that the <wwwwellsfargoonline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the WELLS FARGO ONLINE domain name.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. 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 UDRP ¶ 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 AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first 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 interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant argues that there is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names or that Respondent’s legal name is one of the domain names. The WHOIS information for each of the disputed domain names lists one “Zhichao Yang” as the registrant. Previous panels have concluded that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name when the entire record, including the WHOIS information, is devoid of evidence linking the respondent to the name. See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in [the respondent’s] WHOIS information implies that [the respondent] is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply). The Panel thus finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant contends that the domain names direct Internet users to generic landing pages featuring third-party advertising links to providers of competing bank-related products and services. Previous panels have found that the use of a disputed domain to advertise competing hyperlinks is not a bona fide offering of goods or services and that advertisements are not legitimate noncommercial or fair uses of the domain name. See Royal Bank of Scotland Grp plc et al. v. Demand Domains, FA 714952 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 2, 2006) (finding that the operation of a commercial web directory displaying various links to third-party websites was not a use in connection with 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), as the respondent presumably earned “click-through” fees for each consumer it redirected to other websites). The Panel thus finds that none of the <weelsfarg.com>, <wellafago.com>, <wellafarg.com>, <wellfardo.com>, <wellfarggo.com>, <wellfargocard.com>, <wellfatgo.com>, <wellsago.com>, <wellsfagp.com>, <wellsfargodealerser.com>, <wellsfargodealershipsservices.com>, <wellsfargodealservice.com>, <wellsfargogo.com>, <wellsfargow.com>, <wellsforge.com>, <wellsfrag.com>, <wellsfrg.com>, <wellsfrgorewards.com>, <wellsgarg.com>, <wellsvfargo.com>, <wellwargo.com>, <welsafrgo.com>, <welsfarog.com>, <welslfargodealerservices.com>, <welssfrago.com>, <wolsfargo.com>, <wwwweelsfargo.com>, <wwwwellscargo.com>, and <wwwwellsfaro.com> domain names provides a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services or a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
The <wellsfargofincial.com> and <wwwwellsfargoonline.com> domain names resolve to websites that request Internet users to download material onto their computer while opening search engine boxes. Complainant asserts that the material Respondent has placed for download on the <wellsfargofincial.com> domain name is a computer virus. Previous panels have found that a respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods or services by requesting Internet users to install viruses onto their devices. See Ceridian Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc., FA 1259927 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2009) (finding that a respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website which attempts to download computer viruses “failed to create any semblance of 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)”).
Complainant contends that Respondent also uses the <wellsfargofincial.com> and <wwwwellsfargoonline.com> domain names to divert Internet users away from Complainant’s, which is also not a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s use of the <wellsfargofincial.com> and <wwwwellsfargoonline.com> domain names is not 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 Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration as evidenced by several UDRP proceedings in which the domain names were transferred to the respective complainants. See, e.g., Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Zhichao Yang, FA 1450754 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 10, 2012); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Zhichao Yang, FA 1461251 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 16, 2012); Redcats USA v. Zhichao Yang, FA 1462454 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 10, 2012). Previous panels have found that a series of past UDRP decisions decided against a respondent are evidence of bad faith use and registration. See TRAVELOCITY.COM LP v. Aziz, FA 1260783 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 16, 2009) (“These previous [UDRP] decisions demonstrate a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). The Panel thus finds that Respondent has demonstrated bad faith use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Respondent’s disputed domain names redirect Internet users to search engines and competing advertising links, where Internet users might click on a link and mistakenly conclude that the domain name will resolve to a website affiliated with Complainant. The <weelsfarg.com>, <wellafago.com>, <wellafarg.com>, <wellfardo.com>, <wellfarggo.com>, <wellfargocard.com>, <wellfatgo.com>, <wellsago.com>, <wellsfagp.com>, <wellsfargodealerser.com>, <wellsfargodealershipsservices.com>, <wellsfargodealservice.com>, <wellsfargogo.com>, <wellsfargow.com>, <wellsforge.com>, <wellsfrag.com>, <wellsfrg.com>, <wellsfrgorewards.com>, <wellsgarg.com>, <wellsvfargo.com>, <wellwargo.com>, <welsafrgo.com>, <welsfarog.com>, <welslfargodealerservices.com>, <welssfrago.com>, <wolsfargo.com>, <wwwweelsfargo.com>, <wwwwellscargo.com>, and <wwwwellsfaro.com> domain names resolve to webpages that have nearly identical layouts to Complainant’s and offer a variety of hyperlinks to competing businesses. Previous panels have found that it is bad faith use and registration to attract consumers for commercial gain through hyperlinks that confuse Internet users into associating a domain name with a complainant’s business. See AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes). The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and used the <weelsfarg.com>, <wellafago.com>, <wellafarg.com>, <wellfardo.com>, <wellfarggo.com>, <wellfargocard.com>, <wellfatgo.com>, <wellsago.com>, <wellsfagp.com>, <wellsfargodealerser.com>, <wellsfargodealershipsservices.com>, <wellsfargodealservice.com>, <wellsfargogo.com>, <wellsfargow.com>, <wellsforge.com>, <wellsfrag.com>, <wellsfrg.com>, <wellsfrgorewards.com>, <wellsgarg.com>, <wellsvfargo.com>, <wellwargo.com>, <welsafrgo.com>, <welsfarog.com>, <welslfargodealerservices.com>, <welssfrago.com>, <wolsfargo.com>, <wwwweelsfargo.com>, <wwwwellscargo.com>, and <wwwwellsfaro.com> domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
The <wellsfargofincial.com> domain name resolves to a website that attempts to download a known virus onto Internet users computers, proof of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. The <wwwwellsfargoonline.com> domain name resolves through several websites, two of which attempt to upload content to the Internet user’s device. See Google, Inc. v. Petrovich, FA 1339345 (Nat. Arb. Forum September 23, 2010) (finding that disputed domain names which distribute malware to Internet users’ computers demonstrate Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). The Panel finds that both the <wwwwellsfargoonline.com> and <wellsfargofincial.com>domain names were registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Respondent has engaged in typosquatting by using Complainant’s marks with common misspellings, omissions, and other errors. Previous panels have held that typosquatting is itself evidence of bad faith use and registration. See Zone Labs, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 190613 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (“Respondent’s registration and use of [the <zonelarm.com> domain name] that capitalizes on the typographical error of an Internet user is considered typosquatting. Typosquatting, itself is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). The Panel thus finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant argues that Respondent had constructive, if not actual, knowledge of the marks. Complainant bases this upon the argument that its marks are not only registered but also internationally famous. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name, further evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <weelsfarg.com>, <wellafago.com>, <wellafarg.com>, <wellfardo.com>, <wellfarggo.com>, <wellfargocard.com>, <wellfatgo.com>, <wellsago.com>, <wellsfagp.com>, <wellsfargodealerser.com>, <wellsfargodealershipsservices.com>, <wellsfargodealservice.com>, <wellsfargofincial.com>, <wellsfargogo.com>, <wellsfargow.com>, <wellsforge.com>, <wellsfrag.com>, <wellsfrg.com>, <wellsfrgorewards.com>, <wellsgarg.com>, <wellsvfargo.com>, <wellwargo.com>, <welsafrgo.com>, <welsfarog.com>, <welslfargodealerservices.com>, <welssfrago.com>, <wolsfargo.com>, <wwwweelsfargo.com>, <wwwwellscargo.com>, <wwwwellsfargoonline.com>, and <wwwwellsfaro.com> domain names be TRNASFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: February 7, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page