American International Group, Inc. v. Kim
Chung
Claim
Number: FA0306000161315
Complainant is American International Group, Inc.,
New York, NY (“Complainant”) represented by Claudia Werner Stangle.
Respondent is Kim Chung, Los
Angeles, CA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <aigprivatebankonline.com>, registered
with Go Daddy Software, Inc.
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.
Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on June 2, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint
on June 3, 2003.
On
June 5, 2003, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <aigprivatebankonline.com> is registered with Go Daddy
Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Go
Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy
Software, 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
June 5, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
June 25, 2003 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 @aigprivatebankonline.com
by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
July 2, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Having
reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the
"Panel") finds that the 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 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 <aigprivatebankonline.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AIG and AIG PRIVATE BANK
marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <aigprivatebankonline.com> domain
name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <aigprivatebankonline.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant
offers a wide variety of sophisticated financial and investment services. The AIG mark is an acronym for Complainant’s
company name, American International Group, Inc. Since 1968, Complainant has continuously used the AIG mark in
connection with its member companies’ goods and services and with its websites
located at the <aig.com>, <aigonline.com>, <aigdirect.com>
and <aigprivatebank.com> domain names.
Complainant
holds numerous registrations for the AIG mark worldwide. Complainant holds multiple registrations for
the AIG mark on the Principal Register, including United States Patent and
Trademark Office Registration Nos. 1,151,229, registered on Apr. 14, 1981;
1,273,845, registered on April 10, 1984; and 1,172,557, registered on Oct. 6,
1981. In addition, Complainant’s member
company holds Registration No. 480,032, registered on December 13, 2000, for
the AIG PRIVATE BANK mark.
Respondent registered
the <aigprivatebankonline.com> domain name on February 7,
2003. Respondent is purporting to offer
banking services and online banking services under the name “AIG PRIVATE BANK”
and “AIG PRIVATE BANKING” at the website hosted at the disputed domain name.
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.
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 has
established that it has rights in the AIG mark through registration with the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and its continuous use of the mark. Complainant has also established its rights
in the AIG PRIVATE BANK mark through its Swiss registration of those
marks. See The Men’s Wearhouse, Inc.
v. Brian Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S.
trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently
distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning”).
Respondent’s <aigprivatebankonline.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. Respondent merely added to Complainant’s
entire AIG PRIVATE BANK mark the word “online”, which is a descriptive word
that does not change the overall impression of Complainant’s mark. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s
domain name is not distinguishable from Complainant’s mark. See Broadcom Corp. v. Domain Depot, FA 96854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23,
2001) (finding the <broadcomonline.com> domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s BROADCOM mark); see also Westfield Corp., Inc. v. Hobbs, D2000-0227 (WIPO May 18, 2000)
(finding the <westfieldshopping.com> domain name confusingly similar because
the WESTFIELD mark was the dominant element).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Respondent
failed to file a response in this proceeding.
Thus, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations and inferences
presented by Complainant as true. See
Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat.
Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s failure to respond allows
all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant to be
deemed true); see also Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Bavarian AG,
FA110830 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2002) (finding that in the absence of a
Response the Panel is free to make inferences from the very failure to respond
and assign greater weight to certain circumstances than it might otherwise do).
Respondent is
not commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is no evidence at the disputed domain name nor in the WHOIS
information that indicates that Respondent is commonly known by the <aigprivatebankonline.com>
domain name. Furthermore,
Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its marks for any
purpose. Thus, the Panel reasonably
infers that Policy ¶ (c)(ii) does not apply to Respondent. 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 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).
Respondent does
not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under
Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). Respondent
is diverting Complainant’s potential customers to a website located at the <aigprivatebankonline.com>
domain name. The website located at
the disputed domain name uses Complainant’s mark in an attempt to appear to be
offering services on behalf of Complainant.
There is no evidence that Respondent is associated with any registered
bank or any other financial institution.
The Panel reasonably infers that Respondent is using Complainant’s
well-known marks to confuse and exploit Internet users who are attempting to
attain Complainant’s services. Thus,
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not evidence a bona fide
offering of services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain
name. See Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, 188 F.Supp.2d 110, 114
(D. Mass. 2002) (finding that, because Respondent's sole purpose in selecting
the domain names was to cause confusion with Complainant's website and marks,
its use of the names was not in connection with the offering of goods or
services or any other fair use); see also Household Int’l, Inc. v. Cyntom Enter., FA 95784 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Nov. 7, 2000) (inferring that Respondent registered the domain name
<householdbank.com>, which incorporates Complainant’s HOUSEHOLD BANK
mark, in hopes of attracting Complainant’s customers, thus finding no rights or
legitimate interests).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent is
trying to attract Internet users to the <aigprivatebankonline.com> domain
name for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with
Complainant’s mark as to the sponsorship or affiliation of Respondent’s
website. The disputed domain name,
which incorporates Complainant’s entire mark and then adds a generic word, is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks.
Respondent is using Complainant’s marks to appear to be offering the
same services as Complainant at the website located at the disputed domain
name. It is reasonable for the Panel to
infer that Respondent is commercially benefiting by attracting Internet users
to the disputed domain name. Thus,
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See America Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374
(WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that Respondent intentionally attempted to
attract Internet users to his website for commercial gain by creating a
likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark and offering the same chat
services via his website as Complainant); see also Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that Respondent had engaged in bad faith use and
registration by linking the domain name to a website that offers services
similar to Complainant’s services, intentionally attempting to attract, for
commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of
confusion with Complainant’s marks).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <aigprivatebankonline.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated:
July 14, 2003
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page