Regions Bank v ZHICHAO YANG
Claim Number: FA1705001729610
Complainant is Regions Bank (“Complainant”), represented by Rachel Hofstatter of Steptoe & Johnson LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is ZHICHAO YANG (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <regionsonlinecreditcard.com>, registered with UNIREGISTRAR CORP.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 28, 2017; the Forum received payment on May 1, 2017.
On May 1, 2017, UNIREGISTRAR CORP confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <regionsonlinecreditcard.com> domain name is registered with UNIREGISTRAR CORP and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. UNIREGISTRAR CORP has verified that Respondent is bound by the UNIREGISTRAR CORP 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 May 3, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 23, 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@regionsonlinecreditcard.com. Also on May 3, 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 30, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it is one of the top 25 financial institutions in the United States with more than $125 billion in assets. It operates some 1,600 branches and 2,000 ATMs across a 16-state network in the South, Midwest, and Texas. Complainant is well recognized and admired for the quality of the services it offers. For example, it has been on the Fortune list of Most Admired Superregional Banks in the United States and has been ranked as one of the top small business-friendly financial services providers by the U.S. Small Business Administration. Complainant uses the REGIONS mark to provide and market its banking and financial services. Complainant has rights in the mark based upon registration in the United States in 1995.
According to Complainant, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark as it contains the mark in its entirety with the mere addition of the generic terms “online” and “credit card” and adding the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Complainant alleges that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not granted Respondent permission or license to use the REGIONS mark for any purpose. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name for a website that advertises and links to services that compete directly with Complainant’s services. Respondent uses the confusingly similar domain name to advertise and profit from services by causing consumers to falsely believe that they can obtain Complainant’s banking services under the REGIONS mark from the disputed website, based on the erroneous belief that the websites are affiliated. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name resolves to a webpage that displays links to services that directly compete with Complainant. These links divert potential customers away from Complainant to Respondent, which disrupts Complainant’s business. Respondent also attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating confusion as to the source sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name. Finally, Respondent must have had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark because of the affiliate program between Complainant and Respondent. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark REGIONS and uses it to market financial products and services.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 1995.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2016.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name resolves to a web site containing links to products and services that compete with those of 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.”).
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s REGIONS mark as it contains the mark in its entirety with the mere addition of the generic terms “online” and “credit card” and adding the gTLD “.com.” The addition of generic terms to a mark and the addition of a gTLD are insufficient to distinguish a domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.); see also Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Forum May 27, 2003) (“The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the REGIONS mark in any way. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “ZHICHAO YANG.” Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark.) Additionally, lack of evidence in the record to indicate that the respondent had been authorized to register a domain name using a complainant’s mark supports a finding that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). The Panel therefore finds under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name for a website that advertises and links to services that compete directly with Complainant’s services. Further, Complainant uses the confusingly similar domain name to advertise and profit from services by causing consumers to falsely believe that they can obtain REGIONS banking services from the website at the disputed domain name, based on the erroneous belief that the websites are affiliated. Such competitive links evince a lack of rights and legitimate interests. See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum March 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute 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).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage that display links to services that directly compete with those of Complainant. These links divert potential customers away from Complainant to Respondent, which disrupts Complainant’s business. See Fitness International, LLC v. ALISTAIR SWODECK / VICTOR AND MURRAY, FA1506001623644 (Forum July 9, 2015) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to operate a website that purports to offer health club related services such as fitness experts, fitness models, fitness venues, exercise programs, and personal training, all of which are the exact services offered by Complainant. Doing so causes customer confusion, disrupts Complainant’s business, and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent’s links compete with Complainant’s legitimate business offerings and as such Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Additionally, Respondent also attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating confusion as to the source sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name. Such competitive links also indicate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Capital One Financial Corp. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA1504001615034 (Forum June 4, 2015) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <capitaloneonebank.com> domain name to display links to the complainant’s competitors, such as Bank of America, Visa, Chase and American Express constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). The Panel finds that Respondent has included competing hyperlinks on the resolving website, that Respondent presumably commercially gains from these links, and that Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <regionsonlinecreditcard.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: May 30, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page