The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Devine Justine
Claim Number: FA2112001977987
Complainant is The Toronto-Dominion Bank (“Complainant”), represented by Jason Hayden of CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden. Respondent is Devine Justine (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <tdonlinebanks.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 22, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 22, 2021.
On December 22, 2021, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <tdonlinebanks.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 December 23, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 12, 2022 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@tdonlinebanks.com. Also on December 23, 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 January 17, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant is the second largest bank in Canada by market capitalization and deposits, and the sixth largest bank in North America.
Complainant has rights in the TD BANK mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <tdonlinebanks.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TD BANK mark. Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the term “online” along with an “s” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <tdonlinebanks.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the TD BANK mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent’s domain name resolves to an inactive webpage that fails to display any content.
Respondent registered and used the <tdonlinebanks.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent’s domain name fails to resolve to an active webpage. Respondent also had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TD BANK mark due to the longstanding use and fame of the mark in commerce.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in the TD BANK mark.
Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in TD BANK.
Complainant’s has not authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s trademark.
Respondent holds the at-issue domain name passively.
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 at-issue domain name is identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for the TD BANK trademark, demonstrates Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”).
Respondent’s <tdonlinebanks.com> domain name contains Complainant’s TD BANK trademark with the descriptive term “online” inserted between the mark’s terms and an “s” added to the second term with all followed by the top-level domain name “.com.” The differences between Complainant’s trademark and Respondent’s domain name are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of the Policy. In fact, the added term “online” suggests Complainant’s online banking business. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <tdinternetbanking.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TD BANK trademark 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 LodgeWorks Partners, L.P. v. Isaac Goldstein / POSTE RESTANTE, FA 1717300 (Forum Apr. 5, 2017) (“The Panel agrees; Respondent’s <archerhotels.com> is confusingly similar to complainant’s ARCHER HOTEL mark.”).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name indicates “Devine Justine” as the domain name’s registrant and there is no evidence before the Panel that otherwise indicates Respondent is commonly known by the <tdonlinebanks.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names because the WHOIS information listed “Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a Electromatic Equip't” as the registrant and there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names in dispute).
Browsing to <tdonlinebanks.com> returns a blank page. Respondent’s passive holding of the at-issue domain name shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also, Nutri/System IPHC, Inc. v. Usama Ayub, FA1725806 (Forum June 5, 2017) (“Respondent does not use the <nutrisystemturbo.us> domain for a bona fide offering of goods or services because the domain name resolves to a website that currently is designated as ‘under construction.’”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in the <tdonlinebanks.com> domain name.
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, there is sufficient evidence from which the Panel may conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
First as mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent fails to make active use of the <tdonlinebanks.com> domain name. Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA1503001608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) (“Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also, The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Yi Liu, FA1904001838897 (Forum May 15, 2019) (finding bad faith where respondent’s domain name addressed a blank page).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TD BANK mark when it registered <tdonlinebanks.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant’s trademark is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s TD BANK trademark. See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. ALEXANDER DE ALMEIDA LOPES, FA 1705267 (Forum Jan. 9, 2017) (finding the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant’s COACHELLA mark when it registered and used the <coachellastuff.com> domain name—and thus did so in bad faith—because the complainant presented adequate evidence that its mark was well-known and famous); see also, Google Inc. v. Ahmed Humood, FA1411001591796 (Forum Jan. 7, 2015) (“This Panel makes that inference; Respondent has actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark at the time of domain name registration based on the fame of Complainant’s GOOGLE mark and Respondent’s use of one of the disputed domain names to detail Internet domain name registration and maintenance services related to an in competition with Complainant.). Respondent’s registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in such domain name shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <tdonlinebanks.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: January 18, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page