Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC and its related entity CE TM Holdings LLC v. Ryan Stover / Citadel Funding
Claim Number: FA2103001936603
Complainant is Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC and its related entity CE TM Holdings LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Laura M. Franco of Winston & Strawn LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Ryan Stover / Citadel Funding (“Respondent”), Utah, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <citadel-funding.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 15, 2021; the Forum received payment on March 15, 2021.
On March 16, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <citadel-funding.com> 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 March 18, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 7, 2021 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@citadel-funding.com. Also on March 18, 2021, 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 April 13, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <citadel-funding.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITADEL mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <citadel-funding.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <citadel-funding.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant is an alternative investment institution. Complainant holds a registration for the CITADEL mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (Reg. No. 3,213,943. Registered on Feb. 27, 2007).
Respondent registered the <citadel-funding.com> domain name on July 9, 2018, and uses it to advertise its competing services.
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”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the CITADEL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration with the USPTO. 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.”).
Respondent’s <citadel-funding.com> domain name uses the CITADEL mark, and simply adds a descriptive term and a gTLD. These changes do not distinguish the domain name from the incorporated mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See AOL LLC v. AIM Profiles, FA 964479 (Forum May 20, 2007) (finding that the respondent failed to differentiate the <aimprofiles.com> domain name from the complainant’s AIM mark by merely adding the term “profiles”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <citadel-funding.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITADEL mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <citadel-funding.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Although the identifying WHOIS information shows that the registrant organization is “Citadel Funding,” the address is listed as “PO Box” in North Salt Lake, UT, and the Admin’s address is 251 Parkway Cir., North Salt Lake, UT 84054. Neither address is listed on the website associated with the disputed domain name. A record from the Utah Secretary of State states that the business no longer maintains an active registration. Complainant provides Google Maps evidence showing that the admin address is an empty lot in North Salt Lake, UT. Complainant further asserts that Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s CITADEL mark. The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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); see also The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. RD BANK /-, FA1404001554468 (Forum May 13, 2014) (“WHOIS information for the <rdbank.com> domain name lists ‘RD BANK /-‘ as the domain name’s registrant. However, there is nothing in the record that corroborates the WHOIS data’s suggestion that Respondent may be commonly known by the <rdbank.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”).
Complainant further argues that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, because Respondent purports to operate a business that directly competes with Complainant. Use of a complainant’s mark to sell services that compete with complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). Complainant provides evidence that Respondent’s offers financial services at the disputed domain name, in direct competition with Complainant. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Complainant also argues that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of <citadel-funding.com> because Respondent’s business appears to be dissolved. Evidence of dissolution can be used to show that a respondent is not using a disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Bitfury Group Limited v. Whois Agent - Domain Protection Services Inc. / DomainWebber, D2019-1303 (WIPO, Jul. 23, 2019) (Holding the Complainant has also noted that the United Kingdom registered company mentioned on the Respondent’s website was dissolved on April 30, 2019, and therefore does not carry on any activity at all. This says the Complainant, is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.). Complainant provides evidence from the Utah Secretary of State showing that Respondent’s business registration expired on June 24, 2020. The Panel finds that this is further evidence that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent used <citadel-funding.com> in bad faith to compete with Complainant. Trading off the goodwill of a complainant evinces bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See CAN Financial Corporation v. William Thomson / CNA Insurance, FA1401001541484 (Forum Feb. 28, 2014) (finding that the respondent had engaged in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), by using a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its own website where it sold competing insurance services). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CITADEL mark because of the similarities in content between Complainant’s business and Respondent’s website. Actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark evidences bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), and can be found where there is an obvious link between the Respondent’s content on the website and Complainant’s mark. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the link between the complainant’s mark and the content advertised on the respondent’s website was obvious, the respondent “must have known about the Complainant’s mark when it registered the subject domain name”). As Respondent uses the disputed domain name to provide competing financial services, the Panel finds that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CITADEL mark and thus registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(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 <citadel-funding.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: April 14, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page