Capital One Financial Corp. v. Ahmad Imani
Claim Number: FA1606001677654
Complainant is Capital One Financial Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by John Gary Maynard, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Ahmad Imani (“Respondent”), represented by Kay-Ann Waite of Kay-Ann P. Waite, P.A., Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <capitaloneinsurance.com>, registered with Name.com, 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.
Hon. Sir Ian Barker, QC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 2, 2016; the Forum received payment on June 2, 2016.
On June 3, 2016, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <capitaloneinsurance.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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 June 6, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 1, 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@capitaloneinsurance.com. Also on June 6, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 1, 2016.
On July 7, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Sir Ian Barker, QC 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
The Complainant is a financial services provider, founded in 1988, which offers a full range of financial services under the name CAPITAL ONE. Its services include banking and insurance and the mass marketing of credit cards.
The Complainant owns registered trademarks for the words CAPITAL ONE in the United States and in many other countries. It owns other trademarks, which include the words CAPITAL ONE but with generic additions such as “BANK” or “AUTO FINANCE”.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark “CAPITAL ONE” in that it incorporates the whole of the trademark with the addition of the word “insurance”. The Complainant’s business includes insurance and the additional word thus exacerbates the confusing similarity.
None of the situations set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy applies to the Respondent. He was not given any authorization by the Complainant to reflect its trademark in a domain name. The Respondent therefore has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The website accessed by the disputed domain name provides links to the Complainant’s business as well as to other financial institutions including competitors of the Complainant. There is thus the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and financial products. The Respondent is benefitting from the Complainant’s goodwill and is disrupting the Complainant’s business.
B. Respondent
The Respondent, through counsel, in his Response stated that he purchased the disputed domain name on September 21, 2015.
Since the purchase, he claims not to have edited any domain name records on the domain file and not to have transacted any business that in any way may infringe the Complainant’s rights to the dispute domain name.
The Respondent requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant without any specific finding of facts.
Because of the Respondent’s consent, the disputed domain name is to be transferred to the Complainant. No discussion of the facts of this case is necessary.
As noted above, the Complainant has requested transfer of the Domain Name and the Respondent has stated in his Response that he has no objection to the transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant.
As the panel held in The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan, WIPO Case No. D2005-1132.
“A genuine unilateral consent to transfer by the Respondent provides a basis for an immediate order for transfer without consideration of the paragraph 4(a) elements. Where the Complainant has sought transfer of a disputed domain name, and the Respondent consents to transfer, then pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules the Panel can proceed immediately to make an order for transfer. This is clearly the most expeditious course (see Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port, WIPO Case No. D2000-0207).”
This approach has been followed in other decisions: See, for example, Valero Energy Corporation, Valero Refining and Marketing Company v. RareNames, WebReg, WIPO Case No. D2006-1336; Nutri/System, IHPC, Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates, WIPO Case No. D2007-0864; KBC Group N.V. and KBC Bank N.V. v. Bank Dir, Bankgroup, WIPO Case No. D2008-0446, Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v Modern Ltd-Cayman Web Dev (FA133625) (NAF January 9, 2001) and Malev Hungarian Airlines Ltd v Vertical Axis Inc (FA212653) (NAF January 13, 2004).
There may be circumstances where it is appropriate to proceed to a consideration of the merits of the Complaint, for example where it is desirable to make a public finding of bad faith against a serial cybersquatter who has repeatedly sought to avoid such a finding by making a timely concession (see Brownells, Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates, WIPO Case No. D2007-1211 and Messe Frankfurt GmbH v. Texas International Property Associates, WIPO Case No. D2008-0375). It is clear that the panel has a discretion to consider the merits where appropriate, even if the respondent has consented to the relief sought by the complainant. See also Graebel Van Lines Inc v Texas International Property Associates (FA1195954) (Forum July 17, 2008).
In this case, the Panel does not consider it appropriate to address the merits. There is no reason to suppose that the Respondent will make abusive registrations of other domain names in the future. He claims that he has not transacted any business using the disputed domain name. It is noted also that the Complainant did not file an Additional Submission as it could have. Accordingly, one can infer that it did not object to the outcome advocated by the Respondent.
Noting the Respondent’s consent to a transfer of the disputed domain name, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <capitaloneinsurance.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
__________________________________________________________________
Hon. Sir Ian Barker, QC, Panelist
Dated: July 15, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page