The United Nations Federal Credit Union v. Lionel Chu
Claim Number: FA1704001728052
Complainant is The United Nations Federal Credit Union (“Complainant”), represented by Michael Rott, New York, USA. Respondent is Lionel Chu (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <unfcu.online>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 20, 2017; the Forum received payment on April 20, 2017.
On April 21, 2017, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <unfcu.online> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 April 24, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 15, 2017 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@unfcu.online. Also on April 24, 2017, 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 May 23, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant registered the UNFCU mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. 2,666,294, registered Dec. 24, 2002) and has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent’s <unfcu.online> is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it simply appends the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.online” to the fully incorporated mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Based on the WHOIS information, Respondent has never been commonly known by the <unfcu.online> domain name. Respondent has used the domain name to resolve to an inactive webpage, which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). Further, Respondent used the domain name to append an email address for fraudulent purposes.
Respondent has registered and uses the <unfcu.online> domain name in bad faith. Respondent possessed actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the UNFCU mark at the time of registration because Respondent attempted to impersonate a UNFCU employee using the disputed domain name. Bad faith is further evidenced by Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name, and his attempt to phish for Internet users’ personal information by feigning affiliation with Complainant.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, The United Nations Federal Credit Union, registered the UNFCU mark with the USPTO (Reg. 2,666,294, registered Dec. 24, 2002) and has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent’s <unfcu.online> is identical to Complainant’s mark because it simply appends the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.online” to the fully incorporated mark.
Respondent, Lionel Chu, registered <unfcu.online> on June 22, 2016.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <unfcu.online> domain name. Respondent has used the domain name to resolve to an inactive webpage. Further, Respondent used the domain name to append an email address for fraudulent purposes.
Respondent has registered and uses the <unfcu.online> domain name in bad faith. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the UNFCU mark at the time of registration. Bad faith is further evidenced by Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name, and his attempt to phish for Internet users’ personal information by feigning affiliation with 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 (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.”).
Complainant has rights in the UNFCU mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration with the USPTO (Reg. No. 2,666,294, registered Dec. 24, 2002), and has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See T-Mobile USA, Inc. dba MetroPCS v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA 1627542 (Forum Aug. 9, 2015) (finding that Complainant has rights in the METROPCS mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office).
Respondent’s <unfcu.online> is identical to Complainant’s mark because it merely appends the descriptive gTLD “.online” to the fully incorporated mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <unfcu.online> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by <unfcu.online>.The WHOIS information for <unfcu.online> lists “LIONEL CHU” as the registrant. See St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <unfcu.online> disputed domain name because the resolving webpage is inactive. See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant’s mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website.”).
Complainant further alleges that Respondent has registered the domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme. A respondent’s attempt to phish for Internet users’ personal information shows a lack of rights and legitimate interests. See Morgan Stanley v. Zhange Sheng Xu / Zhang Sheng Xu, FA 1600534 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that the respondent’s apparent phishing attempt provides further indication that the respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also Virtu Financial Operating, LLC v. Lester Lomax, FA 1580464 (Forum Nov. 14, 2014) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to phish for Internet users personal information by offering a fake job posting on the resolving website).
Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s UNFCU mark when registering the <unfcu.online> domain name. Therefore, Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (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).
Respondent is not making an active use of the <unfcu.online> domain name. A respondent’s failure to make an active use of a disputed domain name’s resolving webpage is evidence of bad faith. See Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (failure to make an active use of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith).
Finally, Respondent is using the <unfcu.online> domain name in connection with a phishing scheme. Phishing for Internet user’s information under the guise of an affiliate of a complainant is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use). Here, Complainant has provided email correspondence containing evidence of Respondent’s attempts to phish for Internet users’ personal banking information. Therefore, Respondent engaged in a phishing scheme and, thereby, acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <unfcu.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: June 6, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page