Webster Financial Corporation / Webster Bank, National Association v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico
Claim Number: FA2012001924238
Complainant is Webster Financial Corporation / Webster Bank, National Association (“Complainant”), represented by Gail Podolsky of Carlton Fields, P.A., Georgia, USA. Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <webstwerbank.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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: Multiple Complainants
In the instant proceedings, there are two Complainants: Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association. Webster Bank, National Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Webster Financial Corporation.
Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that “[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The 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 Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) allows multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006). Based on the evidence presented, the Panel finds that the two parties may be considered one complainant for this proceeding, and they will be referred to collectively as “Complainant.”
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 8, 2020; the Forum received payment on December 8, 2020.
On December 10, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <webstwerbank.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 December 11, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 31, 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@webstwerbank.com. Also on December 11, 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 5, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the WEBSTER BANK mark. Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WEBSTER BANK mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the <webstwerbank.com> domain name and that Respondent registered and uses the 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 BANK mark based on registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,012,979, registered on November 8, 2005). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is a valid showing of rights in a mark. See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).”). Because Complainant provides evidence of registration of the WEBSTER BANK mark with the USPTO, the Panel holds that Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <webstwerbank.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WEBSTER BANK mark because it simply adds the letter “W” between the letters “T” and “E” to form a misspelling of the mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), misspelling a mark by adding a letter to the mark is insufficient to distinguish a domain name from a mark. See Bank of America Corporation v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1629452 (Forum Aug. 18, 2015) (finding that the <blankofamerica.com> domain name contains the entire BANK OF AMERICA mark and merely adds the gTLD ‘.com’ and the letter ‘l’ to create a common misspelling of the word ‘bank.’); see also Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating, “Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate.”). Thus, the <webstwerbank.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the WEBSTER BANK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the <webstwerbank.com> domain name. This allegation must be supported with a prima facie showing by Complainant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). After a complainant successfully makes a prima facie case, a respondent is faced with the burden of proving it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. In Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Forum Feb. 13, 2007), the panel held that when a complainant produces a prima facie case, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c); see also Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made a prima facie case.
Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <webstwerbank.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the WEBSTER BANK mark. When no response is submitted, WHOIS information can be used to show that a respondent is not commonly known by a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a mark constitutes a further showing that a respondent lacks rights in a mark. See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) (concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where “the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as “Bhawana Chandel,” and no information in the record shows that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s mark in any way.”). Here, the WHOIS information lists “Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico” as the registrant and nothing in the record suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the WEBSTER BANK mark in any way. Thus, Respondent is not commonly known by the <webstwerbank.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Additionally, Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the <webstwerbank.com> domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use and instead uses the domain to divert Internet users and induce them to download malware. The use of a domain name incorporating the mark of another to divert users and disseminate malware does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) (“Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Snap Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1735300 (Forum July 14, 2017) (“Use of a disputed domain name to offer malicious software does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”). Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpage for the <webstwerbank.com> domain name, which prompts Internet users to click on a hyperlink which downloads malware. Thus, the Panel holds that Respondent is not using the <webstwerbank.com> domain name for 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).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <webstwerbank.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent diverts Internet users and disseminates malware via hyperlinks on the resolving webpage for the domain. The use of a domain name incorporating the mark of another to divert Internet users and host unrelated hyperlinks is evidence of bad faith disruption of a complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Adorama, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA1503001610020 (Forum May 1, 2015) (“Respondent uses pay-per-click hyperlinks on the resolving website, which redirects users to competing websites. The use of hyperlinks to disrupt and compete with a complainant’s business is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Dovetail Ventures, LLC v. Klayton Thorpe, FA1506001625786 (Forum Aug. 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent had acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), where it used the disputed domain name to host a variety of hyperlinks, unrelated to the complainant’s business, through which the respondent presumably commercially gained). Complainant has provided evidence of the resolving webpage for the <webstwerbank.com> domain name that prompts users to install malware via a hyperlink. Therefore, the Panel finds bad faith.
Additionally, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <webstwerbank.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent engages in typosquatting. Per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), typosquatting is itself evidence of bad faith. See Homer TLC, Inc. v. Artem Ponomarev, FA1506001623825 (Forum July 20, 2015) (“Finally, under this head of the Policy, it is evident that the <homededpot.com> domain name is an instance of typosquatting, which is the deliberate misspelling of the mark of another in a domain name, done to take advantage of common typing errors made by Internet users in entering into a web browser the name of an enterprise with which they would like to do business online. Typosquatting is independent evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of a domain name.”). Complainant contends that by intentionally misspelling “webster” in the domain name Respondent was motivated to exploit consumer’s confusion and mistyping when trying to reach Complainant’s website. Thus, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds 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 <webstwerbank.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: January 12, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page