UBS AG v. James Pac
Claim Number: FA1909001861311
Complainant is UBS AG (“Complainant”), represented by Patrick J. Jennings of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is James Pac (“Respondent”), Ohio, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ubslondononline.com> (“Domain Name”), registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc..
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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 9, 2019; the Forum received payment on September 9, 2019.
On September 10, 2019, OwnRegistrar, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <ubslondononline.com> domain name is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. OwnRegistrar, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the OwnRegistrar, 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 September 16, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 7, 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@ubslondononline.com. Also on September 16, 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 9, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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. Complainant offers a wide range of financial services including banking, investment securities brokering, and lending. Complainant has rights in the UBS mark through its trademark registrations all over the world, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,573,828, registered Dec. 26, 1989). Respondent’s <ubslondononline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UBS mark as it fully incorporates the mark, along with the descriptive phrase “londononline” and a “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <ubslondononline.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s UBS mark and is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the Domain Name to redirect to a webpage (“Respondent’s Website”) that contains Complainant’s UBS Mark, a similar color scheme, and content related to banking and financial services. Furthermore, Respondent’s Website contains a login screen which may be used to defraud users in order to steal their personal or banking information.
Respondent registered and uses the <ubslondononline.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, users to the Respondent’s Website which features similar content and color scheme to Complainant’s official websites. Respondent also presumably attempts to defraud users through a phishing scheme. Finally, Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the UBS mark prior to registering the Domain Name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the UBS mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UBS mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name 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 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”).
Complainant has rights in the UBS mark based upon registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,573,828, registered Dec. 26, 1989). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, “Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”).
The Panel finds that the <ubslondononline.com> domain name is confusing similar to Complainant’s UBS mark as it fully incorporates the UBS mark and adds the descriptive/geographic terms “londononline” and the “.com” gTLD. These changes are insufficient to distinguish the Domain Name from the UBS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because the domain name syntax requires TLDs.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the UBS mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “James Pac” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Name resolves to the Respondent’s Website which reproduces the Complainant’s UBS Mark, its well-known ‘three keys logo’, uses a similar color scheme, contains content related to banking and financing, and a login feature. The Respondent’s Website gives the impression that it is either affiliated with or is actually Complainant’s official website. Furthermore, the Respondent’s Website includes a login feature that could result in Complainant’s customers, thinking they were logging into an official site of the Complainant, providing Respondent with their private login details or other personal information. Such conduct is best characterized as “phishing”. Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to impersonate Complainant for the purpose of engaging in a phishing scheme to acquire personal and confidential information is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Caroline Alves Maia, FA 1796113 (Forum Aug. 6, 2018) (finding the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the domain name because it used the name to resolve to a website virtually identical to the complainant’s to prompt users to enter their login information so that the respondent may gain access to that customer’s cryptocurrency account); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. ruth weinstein, FA 1770352 (Forum March 7, 2018) (“Use of a disputed domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as a complainant and to conduct a phishing scheme is indicative of a failure to use said domain name in connection with a bona fide offer of goods and services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or otherwise fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”);
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds that, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Name, September 4, 2019, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s UBS mark. The Respondent uses the Domain Name to pass itself off as Complainant (including reproducing Complainant’s ‘three keys logo’ on the Respondent’s Website) for financial gain or to disrupt Complainant’s business. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent uses the Domain Name to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme whereby Respondent seeks to acquire personal or account information from customers of the Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Google Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1506001622862 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent’s apparent use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a ‘phishing’ scheme further established its bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ubslondononline.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: October 11, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page