National Westminster Bank plc v. Carl Ltd
Claim Number: FA0603000670271
PARTIES
Complainant is National Westminster Bank plc (“Complainant”), represented by James A. Thomas, of Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein L.L.P., Post Office Box 389, Raleigh, NC 27602. Respondent is Carl Ltd (“Respondent”), 654 Luther ST, Chesapeake, VA 23322.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <natwestbankinc.com>,
registered with Intercosmos Media Group,
Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and
impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in
serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Mr. P-E Petter Rindforth as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on March 31, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a
hard copy of the Complaint on April 5, 2006.
On March 31, 2006, Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com
confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <natwestbankinc.com> domain name
is registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com and that
the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com has verified
that Respondent is bound by the Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a
Directnic.com 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 April 6, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of April 26, 2006 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@natwestbankinc.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April
10, 2006.
On April 18, 2006, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Mr. P-E Petter Rindforth as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant, National Westminster Bank plc (“NatWest Bank”), owned by The Royal Bank of Scotland Group, was founded in 1968 and is a leading financial institution based in the United Kingdom. Complainant has more than 7.5 million personal customers and 850,000 small business accounts (corporate information for Complainant provided as Exhibit A of the Complaint).
Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for NATWEST in the United Kingdom, United States, and a number of other countries throughout the world (copies of official databases for UK and USA, as well as a chart for the rest of the other countries provided as Exhibit B 1-4 of the Complaint). Complainant, and its owners, also hold the domain names <natwest.com>, <natwestbank.org>, <natwestbank.biz>, <natwestbank.org.uk>, <natwestbank.co.uk>, <natwestbanking.com>, <natwestbanking.org>, <natwestbanking.net>, <natwestbanking.co.uk>, <natwestbankline.com> and <natwestbankline.org> (copies of the Whois information for these domain names provided a Exhibit B5 of the Complaint).
The disputed domain name fully incorporates
Complainant’s registered wordmark with the addition of a term describing
Complainant’s business and a common form-of-business designation. The domain name is therefore confusingly
similar to Complainant’s mark.
Complainant argues that these additions do not distinguish the domain
name and refers to Archer–Daniels-Midland Co. v.
Bodine, D2002-0482 (WIPO July
17, 2002) (<hickorypointbank.com>, ruling that: “there is no doubt that
the Domain Name – which incorporates the principal words of Complainant’s mark
– will confuse customers and prospective customers of Complainant’s banking
services.”), and others.
Finally, Complainant argues that the mark NATWEST is well known around the world and that Respondent therefore is deemed to have actual or constructive knowledge of the mark at the time he registered the domain name. Respondent’s intentional copying of Complainant’s website is evidence that Respondent knew about Complainant’s business, its products and its website. Complainant concludes that Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith and refers to Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Iza, FA 245960 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2004) (“Respondent’s . . . domain name . . . redirects Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s billing website, and is used to fraudulently acquire personal information from Complainant’s clients. Respondent’s use of the domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to [the Policy].”), and others.
B. Respondent
Respondent does not contest any of
Complainant’s allegations regarding the domain
name. Respondent asserts that
“unknown persons” stole Respondent’s identity and registered the disputed
domain name without Respondent’s permission.
Respondent stated that it has “no interest and never ha[s] had an
interest in the domain name…in the past, nor in the future.”
FINDINGS
According to Paragraph 15(a)
of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “a
Panel shall 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
this case, Respondent does not contest Complainant’s request that the disputed
domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. In fact, Respondent claims that he has
nothing to do with the domain name and that someone unknown has simply used the
identity of Respondent without his permission.
Therefore,
under these special circumstances, this Panel decides to forego the traditional
UDRP analysis, not to make any further findings or discussion, and order the
immediate transfer of the disputed domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. –
Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the
domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see
also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat
Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the
domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests
of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do
anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to
make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also
Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005)
(“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with
Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego
the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
DECISION
Giving the special circumstances in this case, and the fact that
Respondent does not contest the transfer of the domain name, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <natwestbankinc.com>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Mr P-E Petter Rindforth, Panelist
Dated: May 2, 2006
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum