Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Sancti mohmeeh / websterunionbank
Claim Number: FA2106001952685
Complainants are Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association (“Complainants”), represented by Gail Podolsky of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Georgia, USA. Respondent is Sancti mohmeeh / websterunionbank (“Respondent”), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <websterbankunion.com>, registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc.
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.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainants submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 25, 2021. The Forum received payment on June 25, 2021.
On July 21, 2021, OwnRegistrar, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <websterbankunion.com> domain name is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. OwnRegistrar, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the OwnRegistrar, 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 July 23, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 12, 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@websterbankunion.com. Also on July 23, 2021, 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 August 18, 2021, pursuant to Complainants’ request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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.
Complainants request that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainants.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainants
There are two Complainants in this proceeding: Webster Financial Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary Webster Bank, National Association. The evidence before the Panel shows that Webster Financial Corporation is the registrant of the WEBSTER BANK trademark and that both Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association have used the mark exclusively and continuously in commerce since 1995.
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 Panel accepts that the parent/subsidiary relationship between Complainants and their history of use of the WEBSTER BANK trademark constitutes a sufficient nexus or link such that each may claim to have rights to the <websterbankunion.com> domain name listed in the Complaint.
A. Complainants
Complainants operate in the American commercial banking industry, with rights in the WEBSTER BANK mark based on registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <websterbankunion.com> domain name is confusingly similar to that mark.
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <websterbankunion.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor have Complainants authorized Respondent to use the WEBSTER BANK mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses the confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to a competing website which features the WEBSTER BANK mark and purports to offer financial and banking services.
Respondent registered the <websterbankunion.com> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainants’ rights in the WEBSTER BANK mark because the domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety and is being used in bad faith intentionally to divert, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the WEBSTER BANK mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainants have established all the elements entitling them to relief.
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 Webster Financial Corporation has shown that it has rights in the WEBSTER BANK mark based on registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,012,979, registered Nov. 8, 2005). Complainant Webster Bank, National Association, as a wholly owned subsidiary, has rights as licensee of that mark.
The Panel finds Respondent’s <websterbankunion.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainants’ mark since it incorporates the mark in its entirety, adding only the descriptive term “union” and the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), which may be ignored.
Complainants have established this element.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The <websterbankunion.com> domain name was registered on August 6, 2020. As of June 25, 2021, it resolved to a website promoting “WebsterBank”, offering financial and banking services.
These circumstances, coupled with Complainants’ assertions, constitute a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Accordingly, the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainants have established this element.
(iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
The circumstances set out in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent registered the <websterbankunion.com> domain name in bad faith while fully aware of Complainants’ WEBSTER BANK mark and that Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith to impersonate Complainant in a fraudulent attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainants’ mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.
Complainants have established this element.
Complainants having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <websterbankunion.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant Webster Financial Corporation.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: August 19, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page