Webster Financial Corporation v. Kupin F Aleksey
Claim Number: FA2208002007471
Complainant is Webster Financial Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Gail Podolsky of Carlton Fields, P.A., Georgia, USA. Respondent is Kupin F Aleksey (“Respondent”), Russian Federation.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <hsabank.pro>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with Regional Network Information Center, JSC dba RU-CENTER.
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 August 8, 2022; the Forum received payment on August 8, 2022. The Complaint was received in both Russian and English.
On August 9, 2022, Regional Network Information Center, JSC dba RU-CENTER confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <hsabank.pro> Domain Name is registered with Regional Network Information Center, JSC dba RU-CENTER and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Regional Network Information Center, JSC dba RU-CENTER has verified that Respondent is bound by the Regional Network Information Center, JSC dba RU-CENTER 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 August 15, 2022, the Forum served the Russian language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Russian and English language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 6, 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@hsabank.pro. Also on August 15, 2022, the Russian 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 September 14, 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 THE PROCEEDINGS
Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Russian language Complaint and Commencement Notification, and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the mark HSA BANK registered, inter alia, in the USA with first use recorded as 2003 for financial services.
The Domain Name registered in 2022 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark adding only the gTLD “.pro” which does not prevent this confusing similarity.
The Respondent does not have any rights or interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorized by the Complainant.
The Domain Name has been used for phishing. There has been no bona fide offering of services or legitimate non commercial fair use, only registration and use in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the mark HSA BANK registered, inter alia, in the USA with first use recorded as 2003 for financial services.
The Domain Name registered in 2022 has been used for phishing.
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 HSA BANK mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the USA with first use for financial services recorded as 2003) and the gTLD “.pro”.
The gTLD “.pro” does not serve to distinguish a domain name from a 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 to the Complainant’s registered mark for the purposes of the Policy.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain 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 purpose of the site attached to the Domain Name is phishing which cannot be a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non commercial fair use. See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (finding that ‘Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non commercial or fair use’).
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or provided any explanation.
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
Phishing is disruptive, deceptive and evidence of bad faith registration and use within the Policy 4(a)(iii). See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA 1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015).
As such, the Panelist believes 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 under para 4(b)(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 <hsabank.pro> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: September 14, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page