Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico
Claim Number: FA2004001891826
Complainant is Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association (“Complainant”), represented by Gail Podolsky of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Georgia, United States. Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <websteronnline.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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 13, 2020; the Forum received payment on April 13, 2020.
On April 14, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <websteronnline.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 April 15, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 5, 2020 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@websteronnline.com. Also on April 15, 2020, 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 May 8, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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
Complainants, Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, is a banking company offering banking and financial services. Complainant asserts rights in the WEBSTER marks through its registration of the marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., WEBSTER - Reg. No. 3,334,639, registered on November 8, 2005). Respondent’s <websteronnline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WEBSTERONLINE.COM mark as it incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely adds an additional “n” in “online.”
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <websteronnline.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not authorized to use any of Complainant’s WEBSTER marks. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to host third-party links.
Respondent registered and uses the <websteronnline.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet users for commercial gain. In addition, Respondent’s purposeful misspelling of Complainant’s mark is an example of typosquatting. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the WEBSTER marks at the time of registration.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainants
There are two Complainants in this matter. Complainant, Webster Financial Corporation, is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Waterbury, Connecticut. Complainant, Webster Bank, National Association is a federally-chartered national bank and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Webster Financial Corporation. Complainants offer a wide range of banking and financial services, including online banking, checking account, and mortgage loan services. Webster Financial Corporation is the holding company for Webster Bank, National Association, and provides business and consumer banking, mortgage lending, financial planning, trust, and investment services. Webster also offers equipment financing, commercial real estate lending, and asset-based lending primarily across the Northeast. On a nationwide basis, through its HSA Bank division, Webster Bank offers and administers health savings accounts, and flexible spending, health reimbursement, and commuter benefit accounts.
The Panel must decide whether to permit the two complainants to proceed as one party. The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are UDRP Rule 3(a) and the National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e). UDRP Rule 3(a) states, “Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
The Panel elects to treat the Complainants as a single entity in this proceeding because the Complaint establishes a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants. See Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games and International Olympic Committee v. Hardeep Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006) (“It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.”). Therefore, throughout this Decision, the Complainants will be collectively referred to as “Complainant.”
Complainant is a banking company offering banking and financial services. Complainant asserts rights in the WEBSTER marks through its registration of the marks with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. WEBSTER - Reg. No. 3,334,639, registered on November 8, 2005). Respondent’s <websteronnline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WEBSTERONLINE.COM mark.
Respondent registered the <websteronnline.com> domain name on December 19, 2019.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <websteronnline.com> domain name.
Respondent registered and uses the <websteronnline.com> domain name 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 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”).
Complainant has rights in the WEBSTER marks through its registration of the marks with the USPTO. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV shows its rights in the mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <websteronnline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because the disputed domain name incorporates the WEBSTERONLINE.COM mark in its entirety and merely adds an “n” to the domain name.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <websteronnline.com> domain name. Where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information can be used to determine if a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by that name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name shows that the registrant’s name is “CAROLINA RODRIGUES / FUNDACION COMERCIO ELECTRONICO” and nothing in the record indicates that Respondent is licensed to use Complainant’s mark or is known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent fails to use the <websteronnline.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent uses the domain name to host third-party links. See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business).
Respondent registered and uses the <websteronnline.com> domain name in bad faith. Use of a mark to divert internet traffic to a disputed domain name can be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA1761403 (Forum December 29, 2017) (Finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users from Complainant’s website to Respondent’s website where it offered competing printer products). The Panel therefore finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Respondent’ s misspelling of Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name is typosquatting, which is independent evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See LifeLock, Inc. v. Adam Viener / ThunkTunk LLC, FA1409001579875 (Forum Oct. 28, 2014) (“As the Panel has noted above, at the conclusion of its findings under the first Policy element under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the disputed domain name <lifelocl.com> differs from the LIFELOCK mark only by substituting the letter ‘L’ for the letter ‘K’ in the LOCK-portion of Complainant’s registered mark. The Panel finds this behavior amounts to typosquatting, and as such the Panel finds this to be evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Respondent registered the<websteronnline.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the WEBSTER marks. Therefore, Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <websteronnline.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: May 16, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page