The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Citizens Financial Group, Inc., Churchill Insurance Co. Ltd., Hanco ATM Systems Ltd. & Privilege Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Domaincar c/o Perthshire Marketing a/k/a Domaincar
Claim Number: FA0604000671079
Complainants are The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Citizens Financial Group, Inc., Churchill Insurance Co. Ltd., Hanco ATM Systems Ltd. & Privilege Insurance Co. Ltd. (collectively, “Complainant”), represented by James A. Thomas, of Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, L.L.P., Post Office Box 389, Raleigh, NC 27602. Respondent is Domaincar c/o Perthshire Marketing a/k/a Domaincar (“Respondent”), Trident Chambers, Wickhams Cay 1, PO Box 146, Road Town, Tortola VG.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <citicenbank.com>,
<citizenbanj.com>, <citizenbsank.com>, <citizendsbank.com>,
<citizensbabnk.com>, <citizensbanj.com>, <citizensbasnk.com>,
<citizensbonk.com>, <citizensvank.com>,
<citizenabnk.com>, <citizenbanl.com>, <citizenbsbank.com>,
<citizennbank.com>, <citizensbahk.com>, <citizensbankcom.com>, <citizensbankk.com>, <citizensbankonlinebanking.com>, <citizensbannk.com>,
<citizensbbank.com>, <citizensbsnk.com>,
<citizenswbank.com>, <citizensbaqnk.com>, <citizenbenk.com>,
<citizensnank.com>, <cityzenbank.com>, <citizenssbank.com>,
<citizenbaank.com>, <citizensbenk.com>, <citizensbaank.com>,
<citizensbanik.com>, <sitizenbank.com>, <citizensbankl.com>,
<citizenbamk.com>, <citizenbk.com> and <citizendbank.com>,
registered with Dstr Acquisition Vii, LLC, <citizenzsbank.com>,
registered with Belgiumdomains, LLC,
<wwwchurchillinsurance.com>, <citizen-banking.com>, <citizen1bank.com>,
<citizenbank.org>, <citizensabank.com>, <hancocbank.com>,
<privilegecards.com>, <rbsdigtal.com> and <rbsmarket.com>,
registered with Capitoldomains, LLC, <citizenbankco.com>, <citizensnetbank.com>,
<privilegechoice.com>, <rbsdigita.com>, <citizensbankingco.com> and <churchillmarket.com>, registered with Domaindoorman, 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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
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 April 3, 2006, Dstr Acquisition Vii, LLC, confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <citicenbank.com>, <citizenbanj.com>, <citizenbsank.com>, <citizendsbank.com>, <citizensbabnk.com>, <citizensbanj.com>, <citizensbasnk.com>, <citizensbonk.com>, <citizensvank.com>, <citizenabnk.com>, <citizenbanl.com>, <citizenbsbank.com>, <citizennbank.com>, <citizensbahk.com>, <citizensbankcom.com>, <citizensbankk.com>, <citizensbankonlinebanking.com>, <citizensbannk.com>, <citizensbbank.com>, <citizensbsnk.com>, <citizenswbank.com>, <citizensbaqnk.com>, <citizenbenk.com>, <citizensnank.com>, <cityzenbank.com>, <citizenssbank.com>, <citizenbaank.com>, <citizensbenk.com>, <citizensbaank.com>, <citizensbanik.com>, <sitizenbank.com>, <citizensbankl.com>, <citizenbamk.com>, <citizenbk.com> and <citizendbank.com> domain names are registered with Dstr Acquisition Vii, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dstr Acquisition Vii, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dstr Acquisition Vii, LLC 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, Belgiumdomains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <citizenzsbank.com> domain name is registered with Belgiumdomains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Belgiumdomains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Belgiumdomains, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On April 6, 2006, Capitoldomains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <wwwchurchillinsurance.com>, <citizen-banking.com>, <citizen1bank.com>, <citizenbank.org>, <citizensabank.com>, <hancocbank.com>, <privilegecards.com>, <rbsdigtal.com> and <rbsmarket.com> domain names are registered with Capitoldomains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Capitoldomains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Capitoldomains, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On April 6, 2006, Domaindoorman, LLC confirmed by e-mail to
the National Arbitration Forum that the <citizenbankco.com>, <citizensnetbank.com>,
<privilegechoice.com>, <rbsdigita.com>, <citizensbankingco.com> and <churchillmarket.com> domain names are registered with Domaindoorman, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Domaindoorman, LLC
has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domaindoorman, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On April 25, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of May 15, 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@citicenbank.com, postmaster@citizenabnk.com, postmaster@citizenbaank.com, postmaster@citizenbamk.com, postmaster@citizenbanj.com, postmaster@citizenbanl.com, postmaster@citizenbenk.com, postmaster@citizenbk.com, postmaster@citizenbsank.com, postmaster@citizenbsbank.com, postmaster@citizendbank.com, postmaster@citizendsbank.com, postmaster@citizennbank.com, postmaster@citizensbaank.com, postmaster@citizensbabnk.com, postmaster@citizensbahk.com, postmaster@citizensbanik.com, postmaster@citizensbanj.com, postmaster@citizensbankcom.com, postmaster@citizensbankk.com, postmaster@citizensbankl.com, postmaster@sitizenbank.com, postmaster@citizensbankonlinebanking.com, postmaster@citizensbasnk.com, postmaster@citizensbannk.com, postmaster@citizensbaqnk.com, postmaster@citizensbbank.com, postmaster@citizensbenk.com, postmaster@citizensbonk.com, postmaster@citizensbsnk.com, postmaster@citizensnank.com, postmaster@citizenssbank.com, postmaster@citizensvank.com, postmaster@citizenswbank.com, postmaster@cityzenbank.com, postmaster@citizenzsbank.com, postmaster@citizensabank.com, postmaster@citizen1bank.com, postmaster@citizenbank.org, postmaster@citizensnetbank.com, postmaster@citizenbankco.com, postmaster@citizen-banking.com, postmaster@citizensbankingco.com, postmaster@rbsmarket.com, postmaster@rbsdigtal.com, postmaster@rbsdigita.com, postmaster@hancocbank.com, postmaster@privilegecards.com, postmaster@privilegechoice.com, postmaster@churchillmarket.com and postmaster@wwwchurchillinsurance.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 18, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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 <citicenbank.com>, <citizenabnk.com>, <citizenbaank.com>, <citizenbamk.com>, <citizenbanj.com>, <citizenbanl.com>, <citizenbenk.com>, <citizenbk.com>, <citizenbsank.com>, <citizenbsbank.com>, <citizendbank.com>, <citizendsbank.com>, <citizennbank.com>, <citizensbaank.com>, <citizensbabnk.com>, <citizensbahk.com>, <citizensbanik.com>, <citizensbanj.com>, <citizensbankcom.com>, <citizensbankk.com>, <citizensbankl.com>, <sitizenbank.com>, <citizensbankonlinebanking.com>, <citizensbasnk.com>, <citizensbannk.com>, <citizensbaqnk.com>, <citizensbbank.com>, <citizensbenk.com>, <citizensbonk.com>, <citizensbsnk.com>, <citizensnank.com>, <citizenssbank.com>, <citizensvank.com>, <citizenswbank.com>, <cityzenbank.com>, <citizenzsbank.com>, <citizensabank.com>, <citizen1bank.com>, <citizenbank.org>, <citizensnetbank.com>, <citizenbankco.com>, <citizen-banking.com>, <citizensbankingco.com>, <rbsmarket.com>, <rbsdigtal.com>, <rbsdigita.com>, <hancocbank.com>, <privilegecards.com>, <privilegechoice.com>, <churchillmarket.com> and <wwwchurchillinsurance.com> (collectively the “Disputed Domain Names) domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITIZENS BANK, RBS, CHURCHILL, HANCO and PRIVILEGE marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, is a worldwide financial services, insurance and banking firm. Complainants, Citizens Financial Group, Inc., RBS, Churchill Insurance Co. Ltd., Hanco ATM Systems Ltd. and Privilege Insurance Co. Ltd. are subsidiaries of The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc and affiliates of one another. The Panel will hereinafter refer to Complainants collectively as “Complainant.” Complainant uses the CITIZENS BANK, RBS, CHURCHILL, HANCO and PRIVILEGE marks in connection with its financial, insurance and banking services.
Complainant has registered the CITIZENS BANK mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,482,203 issued August 28, 2001; Reg. No. 2,634,833 issued October 15, 2002). Complainant has registered the following marks with the United Kingdom Patent Office (“UKPO”): RBS (Reg. No. 2,004,617 issued January 5, 1996), CHURCHILL (Reg. No 2,042,931 issued November 28, 1997) and PRIVILEGE (Reg. No. 2,324,008 issued March 12, 2004). Complainant filed a trademark registration application for the HANCO mark with the UKPO on December 3, 2004. Complainant has continuously used the HANCO mark in connection with ATM banking services since 2000.
Respondent registered the disputed domain names on the following dates: <citizensnank.com> on February 12, 2005; <citizensbankonlinebanking.com> on February 14, 2005; <citizensbenk.com> on March 7, 2005; <citizensbanj.com>, <citizensbonk.com> and <citizensbsnk.com> on March 15, 2005; <citizendbank.com> on March 21, 2005; <citizenbsank.com> and <citizenabnk.com> on March 22, 2005; <citizenbanl.com>, <citicenbank.com>, <cityzenbank.com> and <citizenbenk.com> on March 28, 2005; <citizensvank.com> on March 30, 2005; <citizensbahk.com>, <citizensbannk.com>, <citizensbaank.com>, <citizensbbank.com>, <citizensbabnk.com>, <citizenssbank.com>, <citizensbanik.com>, <citizensbankl.com> and <citizenbk.com> on April 3, 2005;
<citizenbanj.com>, <citizennbank.com>,
<sitizenbank.com> on April 11, 2005; <citizensbaqnk.com> on
April 20, 2005; <citizensbankk.com> on April 23, 2005; <citizensbankcom.com>
on April 25, 2005; <citizendsbank.com> and <citizensbasnk.com>
on May 10, 2005; <citizenbamk.com> on May 15, 2005;
<citizenbsbank.com> and <citizenbaank.com>
on May 16, 2005; <citizenswbank.com> on June 20, 2005; <privilegecards.com>
on August 27, 2005; <rbsmarket.com> on September 12, 2005; <citizenbank.org>
on September 15, 2005; <churchillmarket.com> on September 16,
2005; <citizensabank.com> on October 2, 2005; <rbsdigtal.com>
on October 3, 2005; <hancocbank.com> on October 13, 2005;
<citizen-banking.com> on October 20, 2005; <citizenbankco.com>
on October 28, 2005; <citizen1bank.com> on November 2, 2005; <wwwchurchillinsurance.com>
on December 3, 2005; <rbsdigita.com> on December 22, 2005; <citizensnetbank.com>
on January 2, 2006; <citizensbankingco.com> on January 11,
2006; <privilegechoice.com> on January 12, 2006; and <citizenzsbank.com>
on February 11, 2006.
Respondent’s domain names resolve to websites displaying
links to Complainant’s competitors in the financial, insurance and banking
industries.
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. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
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.
Complainant has established rights in the CITIZENS BANK mark
by registering the mark with the USPTO.
Complainant has also demonstrated its rights in the RBS, CHURCHILL and
PRIVILEGE marks through registration of the marks with the UKPO. See Vivendi Universal Games v.
XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003)
(“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights
in the BLIZZARD mark.”); see also Innomed Techs.,
Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004)
(“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's
rights in the mark.”); see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7,
2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in
the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that
the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
While Complainant has not registered the HANCO mark, the Panel finds that Complainant is not required to own a valid trademark registration with a government authority in order for it to establish rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Masood, D2000-0131 (WIPO Apr. 13, 2000) (finding that the Rules do not require that the complainant's trademark or service mark be registered by a government authority or agency for such rights to exist). Because Complainant has continuously used the HANCO mark in connection with its financial and banking services since 2000, Complainant’s mark has acquired secondary meaning sufficient to establish common law rights in the HANCO mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Keppel TatLee Bank v. Taylor, D2001-0168 (WIPO Mar. 28, 2001) (“[O]n account of long and substantial use of [KEPPEL BANK] in connection with its banking business, it has acquired rights under the common law.”); see also Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law rights in a mark where its use was continuous and ongoing, and secondary meaning was established).
Moreover, Respondent’s <citizensbankcom.com>,
<citizensbankonlinebanking.com>,
<citizensnetbank.com>, <citizensbankingco.com>, <rbsmarket.com>, <rbsdigtal.com>, <rbsdigita.com>, <hancocbank.com>, <privilegecards.com>, <privilegechoice.com>, <churchillmarket.com> and <wwwchurchillinsurance.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITIZENS BANK, RBS, HANCO, PRIVILEGE and CHURCHILL marks because each contains the entire mark and merely adds common terms to the mark, some of which describe Complainant’s business. In Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, FA 206399 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 15, 2003), the panel found that the respondent’s addition of the term “assurance” to the complainant’s AIG mark did not sufficiently differentiate the domain name from the mark because the appended term related directly to the complainant’s business. Because Respondent has also added terms to several of the disputed domain names, some of which describe Complainant’s financial, banking and insurance services, Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Westfield Corp. v. Hobbs, D2000-0227 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (finding the <westfieldshopping.com> domain name confusingly similar because the WESTFIELD mark was the dominant element).
Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks rights and
legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant must first make a prima facie case in support
of its allegations, and the burden then shifts to Respondent to show it does
have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Clerical
Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28,
2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the
complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is
sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that
such a right or legitimate interest does exist); see also G.D. Searle v.
Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because
Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the
Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to
respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would
promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
Respondent’s failure to answer the Complaint raises a
presumption that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain names. BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v. Tweed,
D2000-0418 (WIPO June 20, 2000) (“By not submitting a response, Respondent has
failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate, pursuant to ¶ 4(c)
of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name”); see
also Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)
(finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent fails to
respond). However,
the Panel will now examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights or
legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Respondent has registered the domain names under the name “Domaincar
c/o Perthshire Marketing a/k/a Domaincar,” and there is no evidence in the
record that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Consequently, Respondent has not established
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(c)(ii). Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar.
14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where the respondent was
not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission
from the complainant to use the trademarked name); see also Great S.
Wood Preserving, Inc. v. TFA Assocs., FA 95169 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 5, 2000) (finding that the respondent
was not commonly known by the domain name <greatsouthernwood.com> where
the respondent linked the domain name to <bestoftheweb.com>).
Moreover, Respondent’s disputed domain names, which are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, each resolve to a web directory containing links to Complainant’s competitors in the financial, insurance and banking industries. In Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v. Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002), the respondent was using a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s AMERITRADE mark to divert Internet users to a competing financial services website. The panel concluded that redirecting Internet users to a competing website could not be deemed a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), and that such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain could not be a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Because Respondent is also using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to websites in direct competition with Complainant, 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 fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain name within the parameters of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage of the complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to a competing commercial site).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent is using the disputed domain names, which are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, to attract Internet users to a web directory displaying links to Complainant’s competitors in the financial, insurance and banking services industries. The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting consumers to these websites. Therefore, Respondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between Respondent’s domain names and Complainant’s marks and capitalizing on the goodwill associated with the marks. The Panel finds that such use indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Nokia Corp. v. Private, D2000-1271 (WIPO Nov. 3, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the domain name resolved to a website that offered similar products as those sold under the complainant’s famous mark); see also Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if the respondent profits from its diversionary use of the complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and the respondent fails to contest the complaint, it may be concluded that the respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Moreover, some of Respondent’s various misspellings of
Complainant’s CITIZENS BANK mark in the disputed domain names, as well as
Respondent’s <wwwchurchillinsurance.com> domain name, indicate
that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting.
Typosquatting constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Dermalogica, Inc. v. Domains to Develop, FA
175201 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2003) (finding that
the <dermatalogica.com> domain name was a “simple misspelling” of the
complainant's DERMALOGICA mark which indicated typosquatting and
bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also K.R.
USA, INC. v. SO SO DOMAINS, FA 180624 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 18, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s registration
and use of the <philadelphiaenquirer.com> and
<tallahassedemocrat.com> domain names capitalized on the typographical
error of Internet users seeking the complainant's THE PHILADELPHIA
INQUIRER and TALLAHASSEE DEMOCRAT marks, evincing typosquatting and bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <citicenbank.com>, <citizenabnk.com>, <citizenbaank.com>, <citizenbamk.com>, <citizenbanj.com>, <citizenbanl.com>, <citizenbenk.com>, <citizenbk.com>, <citizenbsank.com>, <citizenbsbank.com>, <citizendbank.com>, <citizendsbank.com>, <citizennbank.com>, <citizensbaank.com>, <citizensbabnk.com>, <citizensbahk.com>, <citizensbanik.com>, <citizensbanj.com>, <citizensbankcom.com>, <citizensbankk.com>, <citizensbankl.com>, <sitizenbank.com>, <citizensbankonlinebanking.com>, <citizensbasnk.com>, <citizensbannk.com>, <citizensbaqnk.com>, <citizensbbank.com>, <citizensbenk.com>, <citizensbonk.com>, <citizensbsnk.com>, <citizensnank.com>, <citizenssbank.com>, <citizensvank.com>, <citizenswbank.com>, <cityzenbank.com>, <citizenzsbank.com>, <citizensabank.com>, <citizen1bank.com>, <citizenbank.org>, <citizensnetbank.com>, <citizenbankco.com>, <citizen-banking.com>, <citizensbankingco.com>, <rbsmarket.com>, <rbsdigtal.com>, <rbsdigita.com>, <hancocbank.com>, <privilegecards.com>, <privilegechoice.com>, <churchillmarket.com> and <wwwchurchillinsurance.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: May 30, 2006
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum