UBS AG v. Slick Cenu
Claim Number: FA1908001858919
Complainant is UBS AG (“Complainant”), represented by Patrick J. Jennings of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Slick Cenu (“Respondent”), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ubsbanks.org>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 23, 2019; the Forum received payment on August 23, 2019.
On August 30, 2019, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <ubsbanks.org> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 September 3, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 23, 2019 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@ubsbanks.org. Also on September 3, 2019, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On Sandra J. Franklin pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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" 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, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <ubsbanks.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UBS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ubsbanks.org> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <ubsbanks.org> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to file a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is one of the largest financial services firm in the world, with registrations for its UBS mark all over the world, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,573,828, registered Dec. 26, 1989).
Respondent registered the <ubsbanks.org> domain name was registered on August 19, 2019, and uses it to conduct a phishing scheme.
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 Panel finds that Complainant’s registration of the UBS mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the HOME DEPOT mark).
Respondent’s <ubsbanks.org> domain name incorporates the UBS mark in its entirety, along with the generic term “banks” and the “.org” gTLD. Such changes are not sufficient to distinguish a domain name from an incorporated mark in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Morgan Stanley v. Eugene Sykorsky / private person, FA 1651901 (Forum Jan. 19, 2016) (concluding that the addition of a generic term and top level domain to a trademark is inconsequential under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.). The Panel thus finds that Respondent’s <ubsbanks.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UBS mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <ubsbanks.org> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the UBS mark in any way. The WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as “Slick Cenu.” The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <ubsbanks.org> domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Usama Ramzan, FA 1737750 (Forum July 26, 2017) (“We begin by noting that Complainant contends, and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <marlborocoupon.us> domain name, and that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the MARLBORO mark in any way. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the domain name only as “Usama Ramzan,” which does not resemble the domain name. On this record, we conclude that Respondent has not been commonly known by the challenged domain name so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in it within the purview of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”).
Complainant further argues that Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the <ubsbanks.org> domain name is demonstrated by its failure to use the name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant contends instead that the name resolves to a competing website that contains a similar color scheme and financial/banking content. Such use is not indicative of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Complainant provides screenshots showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that features Complainant’s old name, “Union Bank of Switzerland,” along with a similar color scheme, content related to banking and financing, and a login feature. Complainant argues that the website gives the false impression that it is affiliated with, and authorized by, Complainant. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus has no rights or legitimate interests in the <ubsbanks.org> domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Complainant further argues that Respondent’s use of the <ubsbanks.org> domain name to feature a login feature that solicits Internet users’ personal or sensitive information is also not indicative of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a phishing scheme is further evidence that it lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See United States Postal Service v. Kehinde Okunola / Genuine ICT Centre, FA 1785420 (Forum June 6, 2018) (“Respondent uses the <uspscouriers.com> domain name both to sell services competing with the business of Complainant and to phish for personal identification information from Internet users. Neither of these uses of the domain name constitutes a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) such as would confirm in Respondent rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name as provided in those subsections of the Policy.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant claims that Respondent’s use of the <ubsbanks.org> domain name to create a false impression of affiliation with Complainant in order to disrupt the complainant’s business constitutes bad faith. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith where the respondent hosted a website that “duplicated Complainant’s mark and logo, giving every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant’s business . . . to perpetrate a fraud upon individual shareholders who respected the goodwill surrounding the AIG mark”).
Complainant contends that Respondent attempts to obtain Internet users’ personal or banking information through the <ubsbanks.org> domain name evince Respondent’s bad faith. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“Respondent uses the <klabzuba-oilgas.com> domain to engage in phishing, which means Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Complainant also contends that, in light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant's UBS mark, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the <ubsbanks.org> domain name without knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark. The Panel agrees, noting Respondent’s use of Complainant’s logo and color scheme, and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name, and actual knowledge is additional evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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.”). The Panel may agree and find Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark and thus registered the name in 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 <ubsbanks.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: September 25, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page