Citadel LLC and its related entity KCG IP Holdings LLC v. Anthony March / The CGA Exchange
Claim Number: FA1601001656205
Complainant is Citadel LLC and its related entity KCG IP Holdings LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Paul D. McGrady of Winston & Strawn, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Anthony March / The CGA Exchange (“Respondent”), North Carolina, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <citadel.financial>, <citadel.global>, <citadelbond.com>, and <citadelbonds.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com.
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 Forum electronically on January 12, 2016; the Forum received payment on January 13, 2016.
On January 13, 2016, GoDaddy.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <citadel.financial>, <citadel.global>, <citadelbond.com>, and <citadelbonds.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 19, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 8, 2016 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@citadel.financial, postmaster@citadel.global, postmaster@citadelbond.com, postmaster@citadelbonds.com. Also on January 19, 2016, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 10, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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" 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 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
1. Complainant has rights in the CITADEL mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,213,943, registered on February 27, 2007).
2. Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to the CITADEL mark, because they contain the mark along with the generic terms “bond” or “bonds” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” or the descriptive top level domains (“TLD”) “.financial” or “.global.”
3. Respondent is not commonly known by the <citadel.financial>, <citadel.global>, <citadelbond.com>, and <citadelbonds.com> domain names, because the available WHOIS information lists “Anthony March” as Registrant. Respondent fails to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, because each domain resolves to an inactive website.
4. Respondent uses the domain names in bad faith, because Respondent is a competitor of Complainant and the domains resolve to inactive websites.
5. Respondent registered the domain names in bad faith, because it did so with constructive or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CITADEL mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Respondents
In the instant proceeding, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” Complainant has provided sufficient evidence that the domain names are, in fact, controlled by the same person and/or entity.
Respondent has consented to the transfer of the domain names to Complainant.
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(f), 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.”).
Preliminary Issue: Consent to Transfer
The National Arbitration Forum was copied on documentation submitted from Respondent to the Forum which is identified in this proceeding as “Respondent Other Correspondence.” In this document, Respondent consents to the transfer of the domain names. Respondent states as follows:
Per my message several weeks ago when I learned of this, we have no problem turning the domain names over as they are not in use and we have no intention to use them. To avoid a significant waste of time, effort, energy and resource, the matter should be dropped and thee domain names turned over. . . . .This is a simple matter to convey.
Because Respondent has not contested the transfer of the domain names, but instead agrees to transfer the domain names in question to Complainant, the Panel will forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <citadel.financial>, <citadel.global>, <citadelbond.com>, and <citadelbonds.com> domain names. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
DECISION
The Respondent having consented to the transfer of the <citadel.financial>, <citadel.global>, <citadelbond.com>, and <citadelbonds.com> domain names, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <citadel.financial>, <citadel.global>, <citadelbond.com>, and <citadelbonds.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: February 15, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page