Regions Bank v. jun yin
Claim Number: FA2012001923914
Complainant is Regions Bank (“Complainant”), represented by Rachel Hofstatter of Honigman LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is jun yin (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <regions.cam>, registered with Dynadot, LLC.
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 December 4, 2020; the Forum received payment on December 4, 2020.
On December 11, 2020, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <regions.cam> domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, 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 December 16, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 5, 2021 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@regions.cam. Also on December 16, 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 January 9, 2021, 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 <regions.cam> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s REGIONS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <regions.cam> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <regions.cam> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant, Regions Bank, provides consumer and commercial banking, wealth management, and mortgage products and services. Complainant holds a registration for the REGIONS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,881,600, registered Feb. 28, 1995).
Respondent registered the <regions.cam> domain name on April 15, 2020, and uses it to compete with Complainant.
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 has rights in the REGIONS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark 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 demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <regions.cam> domain name uses Complainant’s entire mark and merely adds the “.cam” gTLD. Adding a gTLD to a complainant’s fully incorporated mark does not distinguish the domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bittrex, Inc. v. HOUSNTA BENSLEM, FA 1760232 (Forum Jan. 3, 2018) (“[S]ince the disputed domain name differs from the trademark only by the addition of the gTLD “.cam” the Panel finds the domain name to be legally identical to the trademark.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <regions.cam> domain name is virtually identical to Complainant’s REGIONS 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 <regions.cam> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Respondent is not licensed or authorized by the Complainant to use Complainant’s REGIONS mark. The WHOIS information of record identifies the Respondent as “jun yin.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights or legitimate interests in the <regions.cam> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name); see also Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
Complainant also argues that Respondent fails to use the <regions.cam> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant contends that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host competing pay-per-click hyperlinks. Using a disputed domain name to host hyperlinks that compete with a complainant’s business is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Walgreen Co. v. Privacy protection service - whoisproxy.ru, FA 1785188 (Forum June 10, 2018) (“Respondent uses the <walgreensviagra.net> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and display links to a website offering products similar to those offered by Complainant. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”). Complainant provides a screenshot of the <regions.cam> domain name’s resolving webpage, which shows links for “Regions Bank Login” and “Regions Bank,” which directly reference Complainant’s business and mark. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <regions.cam> domain name in bad faith by attempting to sell the disputed domain name in excess of out of pocket registration costs. Registering a disputed domain name for the purpose of selling it for more than the cost of acquiring the disputed domain name may be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See loanDepot.com, LLC v. Expired domain caught by auction winner.***Maybe for sale on Dynadot Marketplace*** c/o Dynadot, FA 1786281 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Complainant shows that Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale for $950, no doubt above its out-of-pocket costs. The Panel finds that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(i). ”). Complainant provided a screenshot of the <regions.cam> listing page, which shows the disputed domain name is for sale for $1,500. The Panel finds Respondent registered and uses the <regions.cam> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) by offering it for an amount above out-of-pocket costs.
Complainant contends that Respondent has an established pattern of bad faith registrations, due to prior adverse UDRP findings. A respondent who was party to prior UDRP decisions that resulted in the transfer of the disputed domain name may be found to have a pattern of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See DIRECTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018) (“The record contains evidence of Respondents previous eleven UDRP actions, all of which resulted in the transfer of the domain names, thus establishing bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Complainant establishes that Respondent has been a party to five prior UDRP decisions, with all resulting in the transfer of the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent has a pattern of bad faith registrations under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Complainant also argues that Respondent is hosting pay-per-click hyperlinks that attract Internet users for commercial gain and compete directly with Complainant’s business, a further indication of Respondent’s bad faith. Registering a disputed domain name that attracts Internet users for commercial gain and disrupts a complainant’s business by hosting competing hyperlinks evinces bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Transamerica Corporation v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1798316 (Forum Aug. 20, 2018) (“Respondent's use of the domain name to link to competitors of Complainant, presumably generating pay-per-click or referral fees for Respondent, is indicative of bad faith under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).”); see also Nestlé Waters North America, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA 1792308 (Forum July 22, 2018) (Finding Respondent uses the domain names to point to a site which offers links relating to Complainant’s business. “Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Complainant alleges that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the REGIONS mark at the time of registering the <regions.cam> domain name. To support this assertion, Complainant points to its trademark registrations along with the fact that the disputed domain name directly links Internet users to Complainant’s services and those of its competitors. The Panel agrees that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s right in the REGIONS mark when it registered the disputed domain name, which constitutes further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”).
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 <regions.cam> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: January 11, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page