Wells Fargo & Company v. Amber Mika
Claim Number: FA1909001860979
Complainant is Wells Fargo & Company (“Complainant”), represented by Felicia J. Boyd of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Amber Mika (“Respondent”), Minnesota, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <wellsfargomortgage.online> (‘the Domain Name’), registered with Network Solutions, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 6, 2019; the Forum received payment on September 10, 2019.
On September 6, 2019, Network Solutions, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <wellsfargomortgage.online> domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, 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 September 12, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 2, 2019 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@wellsfargomortgage.online. Also on September 12, 2019, 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 October 3, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the mark WELLS FARGO registered, inter alia, in the United States for financial services and first used in 1852.
The Domain Name registered in 2019 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark adding only the generic term mortgage and the gTLD “.online.”
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorized by the Complainant.
The Domain Name does not resolve to a web site, but has been used to pose as a loan officer to obtain personal information from Internet users. This cannot be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial legitimate or fair use.
It is registration and use in bad faith, diverting Internet users for commercial gain and disrupting the Complainant’s business.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the mark WELLS FARGO registered, inter alia, in the United States for financial services and first used in 1852.
The Domain Name, registered in 2019, does not revolve to a web site but has been used for fraudulent e-mails to obtain the personal information of Internet users.
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 Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name in this Complaint combines the Complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark (registered in the USA for financial services with first use recorded as 1852), the generic term ‘mortgage’ and the gTLD “.online.”
The addition of the generic word ‘mortgage’ to the Complainant’s mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark. See Abbott Laboratories v. Miles White, FA 1646590 (Forum Dec. 10, 2015) (holding that the addition of generic terms does not adequately distinguish a disputed domain name from complainant’s mark under Policy 4(a)(i).).
The gTLD “.online” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name.
The Domain Name has been used in a fraudulent phishing scheme using the WELLS FARGO mark. This is deceptive and confusing and amounts to passing off. As such, it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (finding that ‘Passing off in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use’).
As such, the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Impersonating a complainant by use of a complainant’s mark in a fraudulent phishing attempt is disruptive and evinces bad faith registration and use. See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green/ Whois Agent/Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding that respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to send fraudulent e mails constituted bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4 (b)(iii).).
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under ¶ 4(b)(iii). There is no need to consider further alleged grounds of bad faith.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wellsfargomortgage.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page