UBS AG v. Tessy / Tessy Ovie
Claim Number: FA1908001857492
Complainant is UBS AG ("Complainant"), represented by Patrick J. Jennings of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, Washington DC, USA. Respondent is Tessy / Tessy Ovie ("Respondent"), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ubsonclays.online>, registered with Hostinger, UAB..
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 15, 2019; the Forum received payment on August 15, 2019.
On August 19, 2019, Hostinger, UAB confirmed by email to the Forum that the <ubsonclays.online> domain name is registered with Hostinger, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hostinger, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hostinger, UAB 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 August 21, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 10, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@ubsonclays.online. Also on August 21, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 September 11, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 is one of the largest financial services firms in the world, with offices in more than 50 countries and approximately 60,000 employees. Complainant has used the UBS mark since at least as early as 1962 in connection with a wide range of financial services. Complainant owns numerous registrations for the UBS mark and UBS logo in the United States, the European Union, Switzerland, China, and WIPO, among other jurisdictions. Complainant asserts that the UBS mark is famous, and it has been found to be so in previous proceedings under the Policy.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <ubsonclays.online> in August 2019. The domain name is being used for a website that contains Complainant's UBS word mark and logo; Complainant's red, white, and black color scheme; content about banking and financial services; login screens; email addresses incorporating the UBS mark; and what Complainant describes as fake mailing addresses in Switzerland. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and is not a licensee or partner of Complainant nor otherwise authorized to use Complainant's marks.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <ubsonclays.online> is confusingly similar to its UBS mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <ubsonclays.online> incorporates Complainant's registered UBS trademark, the word or phrase "onclays," and the ".online" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., UBS AG v. Stephane Lebecque, FA 1824720 (Forum Feb. 6, 2019) (finding <ubs-crypto.online> confusingly similar to UBS); Google Inc. v. Chris Gillespie, FA 1434643 (Forum May 10, 2012) (finding <googlebarclays.com> confusingly similar to GOOGLE). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used for a website that uses Complainant's marks in a manner obviously intended to confuse and likely defraud Internet users. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., UBS AG v. Frank Kelechi / Harmony House, FA 1832240 (Forum Apr. 4, 2019) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); UBS AG v. Stephane Lebecque, supra (same).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered and is using a domain name incorporating Complainant's famous mark for a website that imitates and passes off as Complainant, presumably for fraudulent purposes. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., UBS AG v. Frank Kelechi / Harmony House, FA 1832240 (Forum Apr. 4, 2019) (finding bad faith registration and use under in similar circumstances); UBS AG v. Stephane Lebecque, supra (same). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ubsonclays.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: September 21, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page