First Republic Bank v. Zhi Ting Ou
Claim Number: FA2203001987421
Complainant is First Republic Bank (“Complainant”), represented by Garner Weng of Hanson Bridgett LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Zhi Ting Ou (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <firstrepublic.top>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.
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.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 8, 2022; the Forum received payment on March 8, 2022. The Complaint was received in English.
On March 9, 2022, Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <firstrepublic.top> Domain Name is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. 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 15, 2022, the Forum served the English language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 4, 2022 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@firstrepublic.top. Also on March 15, 2022, the Chinese and English language 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 April 11, 2022 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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.
Preliminary Issue: Language of Proceeding
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. After considering the circumstance of the present case, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.
A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant owns the trade mark FIRST REPUBLIC registered, inter alia, in the USA for banking services with first use recorded as 1985. It owns firstrepublic.com.
The gTLD “.top” does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark.
Respondent is not commonly known by or authorized by the Complainant to use the Domain Name.
The Domain Name registered in 2021 is not being used. The passive holding of a domain name containing a well known mark does not show a legitimate use or bona fide offering of goods and services. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
Intention to capitalize on a well known mark is bad faith registration and use. Passive holding of a domain name containing a well known mark is bad faith registration and use per se.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant owns the trade mark FIRST REPUBLIC registered, inter alia, in the USA for banking services with first use recorded as 1985. It owns firstrepublic.com.
The Domain Name registered in 2021 has not been used.
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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant's FIRST REPUBLIC mark (which is registered, inter alia, in USA for banking services with the first use recorded as 1985) merely adding the gTLD “.top”.
The gTLD “.top” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is identical for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name.
There has been no use of the Domain Name. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (Inactive use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy 4(c)(i).).
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to register a domain name containing the Complainant’s mark.
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from or exploit the trade mark of another. The Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name. Passive holding of a domain name containing a well known mark without legitimate excuse is bad faith registration and use. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000).
As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <firstrepublic.top> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: April 12, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page