Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico
Claim Number: FA2003001888989
Complainant is Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association ("Complainant"), represented by Gail Podolsky of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Georgia, USA. Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico ("Respondent"), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <websteronlilne.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 19, 2020; the Forum received payment on March 19, 2020.
On March 20, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <websteronlilne.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 March 23, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 13, 2020 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@websteronlilne.com. Also on March 23, 2020, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 April 19, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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
Complainant is a Delaware corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary, both of which are headquartered in Connecticut. Complainant has used WEBSTER and related marks in connection with banking and financial services, including online banking services, since at least 1995. Complainant owns U.S. trademark registrations for WEBSTER (issued in 2007), WEBSTERONLINE.COM (issued in 2008), and numerous related marks.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <websteronlilne.com> through a privacy registration service in October 2019. Complainant refers to the disputed domain name as an instance of "typosquatting," designed to take advantage of Internet users' typographical errors when seeking Complainant's website at <websteronline.com>. Complainant states that the domain name is being used to redirect Internet users to various third-party websites, including sites that require users to download malware. Complainant states further that it has never authorized Respondent to use its marks, and asserts that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <websteronlilne.com> is confusingly similar to its WEBSTER and WEBSTERONLINE.COM marks; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <websteronlilne.com> incorporates Complainant's registered WEBSTER trademark, adding only the generic term "online" (inserting an additional letter "L") and the ".com" top-level domain; and is identical to its WEBSTERONLINE.COM mark, but for the additional "L." The domain name is thus confusingly similar to Complainant's marks for purposes of the Policy. See, e.g., Webster Financial Corp. & Webster Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1861081 (Forum Oct. 5, 2019) (finding <webstteronline.com> confusingly similar to WEBSTER and WEBSTERONLINE.COM); Webster Financial Corp. & Webster Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1842744 (Forum June 8, 2019) (finding <ewebsteronline.com> confusingly similar to WEBSTER); Webster Financial Corp. & Webster Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1830598 (Forum Mar. 26, 2019) (finding <wenbsteronline.com> confusingly similar to WEBSTER); Webster Financial Corp. & Webster Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1829209 (Forum Mar. 12, 2019) (finding <wesbsteronline.com> confusingly similar to WEBSTER). The Panel so finds.
For the same reasons as those stated in Webster Financial Corp., FA 1861081, supra, which involved the same parties and nearly identical facts, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
For the same reasons as those stated in Webster Financial Corp., FA 1861081, supra, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <websteronlilne.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: April 19, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page