Regions Bank v. Tobe Uche
Claim Number: FA2302002030753
Complainant is Regions Bank (“Complainant”), represented by Rachel Hofstatter of Honigman LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Tobe Uche (“Respondent”), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <regbnn.com> and <regibn.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 6, 2023; Forum received payment on February 6, 2023.
On February 7, 2023, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <regbnn.com> and <regibn.com> domain names are registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 February 9, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 1, 2023 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@regbnn.com and postmaster@regibn.com. Also on February 9, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 9, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it is one of the nation’s largest full-service providers of consumer and commercial banking, wealth management, and mortgage products and services. Complainant operates approximately 1,300 banking offices and 2,000 automated teller machines (“ATMs”) across the South, Midwest, and Texas. Complainant has rights in multiple trademarks including the REGIONS, REGIONSBANK, and REGIONS BANK marks through its registration of the marks in the United States in, respectively, 1995, 1995 and 2007.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its REGIONSBANK mark because they are misspelled abbreviations of the mark: the dominant portion REGIONS is abbreviated to “reg” and “regi” and the portion BANK is shortened to “bnn” and “bn”; in addition, the “.com” generic top-level-domain name ("gTLD") is added to the misspelled mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use its marks. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a non commercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving websites mimic Complainant’s legitimate website, displaying Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo and an image of one of Complainant’s branch offices. In addition, one of the disputed domain names was used to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent phishing scheme; the signature block of fraudulent letters attached to the fraudulent emails displayed Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent has a history of adverse UDRP rulings. One of the disputed domain names was used in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Respondent is engaging in typosquatting. Respondent used a privacy shield to conceal its identity. The WHOIS information is false: the address provided does not exist. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights to the REGIONS marks prior to registering the disputed domain names. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the marks REGIONS, REGIONSBANK, and REGIONS BANK with rights dating back to, respectively, 1995, 1995 and 2007, and uses them to provide banking and related services.
The disputed domain names were registered in 2022.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks.
The resolving websites mimic Respondent’s legitimate website, displaying Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo; Respondent used one of the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant to conduct a phishing scheme. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. The WHOIS information is false.
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 disputed domain names are misspelled abbreviations of Complainant’s REGIONSBANK mark: the dominant portion REGIONS is abbreviated to “reg” and “regi” and the portion BANK is shortened to “bnn” and “bn”; in addition, the “.com” generic top-level-domain name ("gTLD") is added to the misspelled mark. Such changes are not sufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“The [<morganstonley.com> and <morganstainley.com>] Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, as they fully incorporate the MORGAN STANLEY mark, varying it only by subtle misspellings, omitting a space between the words, and adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) ‘.com.’”).
Further, the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”) states under 1.7: “In specific limited instances, … the broader case context such as website content trading off the complainant’s reputation … may support a finding of confusing similarity.” In the instant case, the disputed domain name is used specifically to trade off Complainant’s reputation, because it is used to pass off as Complainant by mimicking its legitimate website; in addition, one of the disputed domain names was used in emails in furtherance of a fraudulent phishing scheme. Such use provides further justification for a finding of confusing similarity to Complainant’s mark.
For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant as “Tobe Uche”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The content of the resolving websites falsely suggests that they are associated with Complainant. That is not a fair or legitimate use of the disputed domain name. Indeed, according to paragraph 2.5 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): “Fundamentally, a respondent’s use of a domain name will not be considered ‘fair’ if it falsely suggests affiliation with the trademark owner …”. See 201 Folsom Option JV, L.P. and 201 Folsom Acquisition, L.P. v. John Kirkpatrick, D2014-1359 (WIPO, Oct. 28, 2014); see also Dell Inc. v. Devesh Tyagi, FA 1785301 (Forum June 2, 2018) (“Respondent replicates Complainant’s website and displays Complainant’s products. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”). Consequently the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to use the disputed domain names to make bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Further, Respondent used one of the disputed domain names to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Passing off as a complainant to conduct a phishing scheme is evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii). See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent failed to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain names.
Indeed, as already noted, Consumers visiting the resolving website are likely to be confused as to whether Respondent and/or its website is affiliated in some way with Complainant; and/or the disputed domain name or the associated website are endorsed, authorized, or sponsored by Complainant, none of which are true. This is a form of bad faith use of the disputed domain name. See Bank of America Corp. v. Out Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Forum June 3, 2003) (bad faith established “[s]ince the disputed domain names contain entire versions of Complainant’s marks and are used for something completely unrelated to their descriptive quality, a consumer searching for Complainant would become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting search engine website.”).
Further, also as already noted, Respondent used one of the disputed domain names to pass off as Complainant in a phishing scheme. This can evince bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
In addition, Complainant provides evidence that Respondent has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith in several prior UDRP proceedings. A record of adverse UDRP decisions may be evidence of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See DIRECTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018) (“The record contains evidence of Respondents previous eleven UDRP actions, all of which resulted in the transfer of the domain names, thus establishing bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Thus the Panel finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name using false WHOIS contact information: the address provided does not exist. This can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CNU ONLINE Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1504001614972 (Forum May 29, 2015) (“As the Panel sees that Respondent has provided false or misleading WHOIS information, the Panel finds bad faith in Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd v. Global Mgr, FA 1702001716963 (NAF Mar. 30, 2017) (“Complainant contends that Respondent provided false contact information while registering the disputed domain. Registering a confusingly similar domain name using false contact information can evince bad faith registration.”); see also j2 Global Canada, Inc. and Landslide Technologies, Inc. v. Vijay S Kumar/Strategic Outsourcing Services Pvt Ltd, FA 1411001647718 (NAF Jan. 4, 2016) (“False or misleading contact information indicates bad faith registration and use.”); see also Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Phillip Thomas/Chevron Pacific, FA 1504001615524 (NAF May 29, 2015) (“Complainant’s use of false registration data and its unexplained redirection of the disputed domain name to Complainant’s own website are further indications of such bad faith.”); see also McDonald’s Corp. v. Holy See, FA 0304000155458 (NAF June 27, 2003) (“The Panel finds that Respondent provided false contact information in the registration certificates and that such actions, even though not specifically enumerated in the Policy, may form the basis for a finding of bad faith registration and use.”); see also Mars, Incorporated v. RaveClub Berlin, FA 0106000097361 (NAF July 16, 2001) (providing false registration and contact information for infringing domain names evidenced Respondent’s bad faith). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving websites display Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo, and an image of one of Complainant’s branch offices. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); 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). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith registration and use under 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 <regbnn.com> and <regibn.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: March 9, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page