American International Group, Inc. v. Henrik Gustafsson
Claim Number: FA0702000917060
Complainant is American International Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Claudia
W. Stangle, Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900, Chicago, IL 60601. Respondent is Henrik Gustafsson (“Respondent”), Tvargatan 5C, Arvika, Varmland, II 671 51
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <aigintlonline.com> and <aiginter.com>, registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc.
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.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 15, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 15, 2007.
On February 15, 2007, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <aigintlonline.com> and <aiginter.com> domain names are registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Go Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software, 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 February 21, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 13, 2007 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@aigintlonline.com and postmaster@aiginter.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 19, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) 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 <aigintlonline.com> and <aiginter.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AIG mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <aigintlonline.com> and <aiginter.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <aigintlonline.com> and <aiginter.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, American
International Group, Inc., is a worldwide provider of insurance and financial
services, with operations in over 130 countries. In connection with its wide variety of
insurance and financial services, Complainant has registered numerous marks
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), including AIG
(Reg. No. 1,151,229 issued April 14, 1981).
Respondent registered the <aigintlonline.com> domain name on January 29, 2007, and and the <aiginter.com> domain name on August 23, 2006. Respondent is using the disputed domain names to solicit consumers to purchase stock, which involves asking the consumers to send personal information and funds to Respondent’s bank accounts. The disputed domain names prominently display Complainant’s AIG mark and display Complainant’s physical address as its own.
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. See 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 AIG mark pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its
registration of the mark with the USPTO.
See 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 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.”).
Respondent’s <aiginter.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AIG mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the domain name contains the AIG mark in its entirety, adds the generic prefix “inter,” and adds the generic top-level domain “.com,” which does not sufficiently distinguish the domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); also see 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);
Respondent’s <aigintlonline.com> domain name is also confusingly similar to Complainant’s AIG mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the domain name contains the AIG mark in its entirety and adds the descriptive terms “intl” (short for “international”) and “online,” which are insufficient to differentiate Respondent’s mark from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See PG&E Corp. v. Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that “Respondent does not by adding the common descriptive or generic terms ‘corp’, ‘corporation’ and ‘2000’ following ‘PGE’, create new or different marks in which it has rights or legitimate interests, nor does it alter the underlying [PG&E] mark held by Complainant”); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Domain Depot, FA 96854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2001) (finding the <broadcomonline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s BROADCOM mark). The Panel finds that the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis, as a gTLD is a required part of all domain names. See 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 Nev. State Bank v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 204063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“It has been established that the addition of a generic top-level domain is irrelevant when considering whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar under the Policy.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <aigintlonline.com> and <aiginter.com> domain names. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Because Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint, the Panel assumes that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion); see also Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). Nevertheless, the Panel will examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Respondent is using the <aigintlonline.com> and <aiginter.com> domain names, which are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AIG mark, to imitate Complainant’s website and attempt to fraudulently acquire personal financial information, in what appears to be a “phishing” scheme. Such use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See HOPE worldwide, Ltd. v. Jin, FA 320379 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2004) (finding that a domain name that “is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, redirects Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s website, and is used to acquire personal information from Complainant’s potential associates fraudulently” does not fall within the parameters of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)); see also Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Iza, FA 245960 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2004) (finding that using a domain name to redirect “Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s billing website, and is used to fraudulently acquire personal information from Complainant’s clients,” is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
Complainant asserts that
Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s AIG mark. Additionally,
Respondent’s WHOIS information, as well as other information in the record,
does not suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the <aigintlonline.com> and
<aiginter.com> domain names.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the
disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
See Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan.
23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name
when the respondent is not known by the mark); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17,
2003) (“Given the WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain [name], one
can infer that Respondent, Onlyne Corporate Services11, is not commonly known
by the name ‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is using the <aigintlonline.com> and <aiginter.com> domain names, which are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AIG mark, to imitate Complainant’s website and to fraudulently retrieve personal and financial information from Complainant’s customers. Such use constitutes “phishing” and is evidence that Respondent registered and used the <aigintlonline.com> and <aiginter.com> domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Iza, FA 245960 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2004) (finding that using a domain name that “is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, redirects Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s billing website, and is used to fraudulently acquire personal information from Complainant’s clients” is evidence of bad faith registration and use); see also Capital One Fin. Corp. v. Howel, FA 289304 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding bad faith registration and use because the respondent used the domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that imitated the complainant’s website and to fraudulently acquire personal information from the complainant’s clients).
Respondent is using the <aigintlonline.com> and <aiginter.com> domain names to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s services to Respondent’s own website which imitates Complainant’s website. Respondent has attempted to profit from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s well-known AIG mark. Such use of the disputed domain names to opportunistically benefit from Complainant’s mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Vivendi Universal Games v. Ballard, FA 146621 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2002) (finding that where the complainant’s mark was appropriated at registration, and a copy of the complainant’s website was used at the domain name in order to facilitate the interception of the complainant’s customer’s account information, the respondent’s behavior evidenced bad faith use and registration of the domain name); see also London Metal Exch. Ltd. v. Hussain, D2000-1388 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the “letters ‘lme’ are so obviously connected with a well-known entity that their very use by someone with no connection to Complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <aigintlonline.com> and <aiginter.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: March 22, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum