BB&T Corporation v. Henry Chan
Claim
Number: FA0403000245924
Complainant is BB&T Corporation (“Complainant”), represented
by Larry C. Jones, of Alston & Bird, LLP,
Bank of America Plaza, 101 S. Tryon Street, Suite 4000, Charlotte, NC
28280-4000. Respondent is Henry Chan (“Respondent”), P.O. Box
SS-6348/A124, Nassau, Bahamas.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <onlinebbt.com>, <bankbbandt.com>,
<bbandtbanking.com>, and <bbtandt.com>, registered
with Iholdings.com, 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.
Hon.
Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on March 15, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on March 17, 2004.
On
March 19, 2004, Iholdings.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain names <onlinebbt.com>, <bankbbandt.com>, <bbandtbanking.com>,
and <bbtandt.com> are registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Iholdings.com, Inc. has
verified that Respondent is bound by the Iholdings.com, Inc. registration
agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by
third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (the "Policy").
On
March 19, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
April 8, 2004 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was
transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons
listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing
contacts, and to postmaster@onlinebbt.com, postmaster@bankbbandt.com,
postmaster@bbandtbanking.com, and postmaster@bbtandt.com by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
April 20, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Ralph Yachnin 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."
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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <onlinebbt.com>,
<bankbbandt.com>, <bbandtbanking.com>, and <bbtandt.com>
domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BBANDT.COM and
BB&T ONLINE marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <onlinebbt.com>, <bankbbandt.com>,
<bbandtbanking.com>, and <bbtandt.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <onlinebbt.com>,
<bankbbandt.com>, <bbandtbanking.com>, and <bbtandt.com>
domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant is a
well-known financial institution in the United States that has provided a wide
range of banking and financial services in the U.S. In so doing, Complainant has used extensively the service mark
BB&T, variations thereof such as BBANDT.COM, and BB&T ONLINE.
Complainant owns
several registrations for its BB&T mark and the variations thereof with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), including U.S. Service
Mark Registration Nos. 1,382,662 (for BB&T, issued Feb. 11, 1986),
2,614,387 (for BBANDT.COM, issued Sept. 3, 2002), and 2,424,464 (for BB&T
ONLINE, issued Jan. 30, 2001).
Complainant has
spent millions of dollars annually in advertising and promoting its services
under its various marks. Complainant,
through affiliated entities, also owns and uses the domain names
<bbandt.com> and <bbt.com> to promote Complainant’s wide variety of
financial services.
Respondent
registered the domain name <onlinebbt.com> on October 31,
2002. Respondent registered the domain
name <bankbbandt.com> on November 21, 2002. Respondent registered the domain name <bbandtbanking.com>
on November 18, 2003. Respondent registered the domain name <bbtandt.com>
on December 4, 2003. Each domain
name links to a website that contains the respective domain name at the top of
the page. These websites all provide links to third-party businesses that
provide financial 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."
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(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and
draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of
the Rules.
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.
Registering a
mark with a governmental authority confers rights in the mark to the registrant
under the Policy. Complainant
registered the BB&T, BBANDT.COM, and BB&T ONLINE marks with the USPTO,
the governing authority within the U.S.
Thus, Complainant has established rights in the BB&T, BBANDT.COM,
and BB&T ONLINE marks. See Janus
Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding
that the registration of a mark is prima
facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the
mark is inherently distinctive.
Respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption); see also
Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002)
(“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are
inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.”); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. MacLeod,
D2000-0662 (WIPO Sept. 19, 2000) (finding that the failure of Complainant to
register all possible domain names that surround its substantive mark does not
hinder Complainant’s rights in the mark. “Trademark owners are not required to
create ‘libraries’ of domain names in order to protect themselves.”).
A domain name
that incorporates a third-party’s mark and merely adds a generic or descriptive
term that describes the owner of the mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a
domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). In this case, the disputed domain names <bankbbandt.com>
and <bbandtbanking.com> each contain Complainant’s BBANDT.COM
mark. Respondent has merely added the words “bank” and “banking,” which relate
to Complainant’s services offered under its mark, to Complainant’s BBANDT.COM
mark. Such additions render the domain names confusingly similar to
Complainant’s mark under the Policy. See
Space Imaging LLC v. Brownwell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing
similarity where Respondent’s domain name combines Complainant’s mark with a
generic term that has an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business); see
also Marriott Int’l v. Café au
lait, FA 93670, (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s
domain name <marriott-hotel.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
MARRIOTT mark).
Likewise, a domain
name that incorporates a third-party’s mark and merely adds a single letter to
the mark fails to sufficiently distinguish the domain name from the mark under
the Policy. Here, the domain name <bbtandt.com>
contains Complainant’s BBANDT.COM mark in its entirety. However, Respondent has inserted the letter
“t” between the second letter “b” and the third letter “a” in Complainant’s
mark. Such an addition renders the
domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶
4(a)(i). See Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762
(Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding
letters to words, a Respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless
renders the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks); see
also Am. Online, Inc. v. Avrasya
Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., FA 93679 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2000)
(finding that Respondent’s domain name, <americanonline.com>, is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous AMERICA ONLINE mark); see also Nat’l Geographic Soc. v. Stoneybrook Inv.,
FA 96263 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2001) (finding that the domain name
<nationalgeographics.com> was confusingly similar to Complainant’s
“National Geographic” mark); see also EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (finding
that Respondent’s domain name <eebay.com> is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s registered EBAY trademark).
Domain name
registrants sometimes own marks that contain the ampersand symbol and desire a
corresponding domain name. However,
domain names are incapable of reproducing the ampersand symbol. As a result, registrants of such names often
substitute the word “and” for the ampersand, which is identical in
meaning. Alternatively, registrants may
choose to simply register names that leave out the ampersand symbol from their
desired mark. Thus, previous decisions under the Policy have found that such
substitutions or omissions of ampersands render a domain name confusingly
similar to a third-party’s mark. See Wright & Lato, Inc. v. Epstein, D2000-0621 (WIPO Sept. 2, 2000) (finding that
the <wrightandlato.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s WRIGHT
& LATO mark, because the ampersand symbol (&) is not reproducible in a
URL); see also PG&E
Corp. v. Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (noting that PG&E’s
home web page is found at <pge.com> because the ampersand symbol is not
reproducible in a domain name); see also McKinsey Holdings, Inc. v. Indidom, D2000-1616 (WIPO Jan. 31,
2001) (finding that the removal of the ampersand from “McKinsey & Company”
does not affect the user’s understanding of the domain name, and therefore the
domain name <mckinseycompany.com> is identical and/or confusingly similar
to the mark “McKinsey & Company”).
In conjunction
with the foregoing, Respondent has incorporated Complainant’s BB&T ONLINE
mark in the <onlinebbt.com> domain name. Respondnet has merely
inverted the words “online” and “bbt” in the domain name. Inverting the words
of a third-party’s mark in a domain name fails to sufficiently distinguish the
domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Furthermore, the addition of
a generic top-level domain is irrelevant under the Policy. See NCRAS Mgmt.,
LP v. Cupcake City, D2000-1803 (WIPO Feb. 26, 2001) (finding the domain
name <nationalrentalcar.com> confusingly similar to the mark NATIONAL CAR
RENTAL and holding that “merely inverting the terms of a mark . . .is in
insufficient to dispel consumer confusion; the mark and the resulting domain
name are simply too similar to each other”); see also Toronto Convention
& Visitors Ass’n v. This Domain is For Sale, D2001-1463 (WIPO Feb. 25,
2002) (finding that there would be no reason to distinguish between
<tourismtoronto.com> and TORONTO TOURISM); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429
(WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as
“.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining
whether it is identical or confusingly similar); see also Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc.,
D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) (finding that the addition of a top-level
domain is without legal significance).
Complainant has
established that the disputed domain names <onlinebbt.com>, <bankbbandt.com>,
<bbandtbanking.com>, and <bbtandt.com> are
confusingly similar to Complainant’s BBANDT.COM and BB&T ONLINE marks. Therefore, Complainant has established
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent has
not responded to the Complaint. Such a
failure has been construed in previous Policy decisions as being an implicit
admission that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in a domain
name. Therefore, the Panel presumes
that the Respondent in this case lacks rights to and legitimate interests in
the disputed domain names. See Am.
Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no
rights or legitimate interests where Respondent fails to respond); see also Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency
Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to
respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest
in the domain names).
There is nothing
in the record that indicates Respondent is commonly known by the disputed
domain names <onlinebbt.com>, <bankbbandt.com>, <bbandtbanking.com>,
and <bbtandt.com> pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Thus, the Panel accepts Complainant’s
assertion that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.
See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23,
2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when
Respondent is not known by the mark); see also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known
by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail").
Respondent’s use
of domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark to market
services that compete with the services offered by Complainant under its mark
does not equate to a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v. Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002) (finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain
name to redirect Internet users to a financial services website, which competed
with Complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see
also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June
23, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s appropriation of Complainant’s mark to
market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a
bona fide offering of goods and services); see also Clear Channel
Communications, Inc. v. Beaty Enters., FA 135008 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2,
2003) (finding that Respondent, as a competitor of Complainant, had no rights
or legitimate interests in a domain name that utilized Complainant’s mark for
its competing website); see also N.
Coast Med., Inc. v. Allegro Med., FA 95541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 2, 2000)
(finding no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name that diverted
Internet users to Respondent’s competing website through the use of
Complainant’s mark).
Complainant has
established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Bad faith
registration and use is established under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) when a respondent
registers a domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting a competitor’s
business. In this case, each of the
disputed domain names are used to host websites that link to competitors of
Complainant. Previous decisions under
the Policy have found that in cases such as this, Respondent may be considered
a competitor of Complainant. The
primary effect of Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain
names is to divert Internet users who are seeking Complainant to businesses
that provide services that compete with Complainant. Therefore, Respondent registered the domain names primarily for
the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business, which is evidence of bad
faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Mission Kwa Sizabantu v. Rost,
D2000-0279 (WIPO June 7, 2000) (defining “competitor” as “one who acts in opposition
to another and the context does not imply or demand any restricted meaning such
as commercial or business competitor”); see also S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA
94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent acted in bad faith by
attracting Internet users to a website that competes with Complainant’s
business); see also EthnicGrocer.com,
Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7,
2000) (finding that the minor degree of variation from Complainant's marks suggests
that Respondent, Complainant’s competitor, registered the names primarily for
the purpose of disrupting Complainant's business).
Likewise, under
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), bad faith registration and use is established when a
respondent uses a domain name intentionally to attract, for commercial gain,
Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with a
complainant’s mark. In this case,
Respondent chose to register four domain names that are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s marks. Respondent then
proceeded to use these confusingly similar domain names to divert Internet
users to competitors of Complainant’s business. These two activities, taken in conjunction, evidence that
Respondent was attempting to attract and confuse Internet users, presumably for
revenue generated by each misdirected user. Thus, Respondent registered and
used the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See
Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA
95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name
in question is obviously connected with Complainant’s well-known marks, thus
creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO
Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract
Internet users to his website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of
confusion with Complainant’s mark and offering the same services as Complainant
via his website); see also Scholastic
Inc. v. Applied Software Solutions, Inc., D2000-1629 (WIPO Mar. 15, 2001)
(finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where Respondent initially used the
domain name at issue to resolve to a website offering similar services as
Complainant into the same market).
Complainant has
established 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 <onlinebbt.com>, <bankbbandt.com>,
<bbandtbanking.com>, and <bbtandt.com> domain names
be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated:
April 27, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page