national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Whitney National Bank v. I love China

Claim Number: FA0708001052559

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Whitney National Bank (“Complainant”), represented by Raymond G. Areaux, of Carver, Darden, Koretzky, Tessier, Finn, Blossman & Areaux, LLC, 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2700, New Orleans, LA 70163.  Respondent is I love China (“Respondent”), ChongQingChina, Chongqingshi, chongqing 400010 CN.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <whitnetbank.com>, registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 31, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 1, 2007.

 

On August 1, 2007, Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <whitnetbank.com> domain name is registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On August 6, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of August 27, 2007 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@whitnetbank.com by e-mail.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On September 5, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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."  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <whitnetbank.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WHITNEY mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <whitnetbank.com> domain name.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <whitnetbank.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Whitney National Bank, has been a provider of financial services for over 120 years.  Complainant engages in community banking in the five-state Gulf Coast region, offer extensive services to its customers throughout this region.  Complainant holds several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the WHITNEY mark (i.e. Reg. No. 2,439,672 issued March 27, 2003).  Complainant also operates a website at the <whitneybank.com> domain name. 

 

Respondent registered the <whitnetbank.com> domain name on November 27, 2005.  Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays hyperlinks for various third-party websites, some of which offer goods and services in direct competition with those offered by Complainant.  

 

DISCUSSION

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."

 

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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory.  See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant has established rights in the WHITNEY mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO.   This satisfies Complainant’s burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. Santos, FA 565685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 21, 2005) (“Complainant owns a United States Patent and Trademark Office (‘USPTO’) registration issued September 5, 2000 for the RBK mark.  This trademark registration is adequate to establish rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that the complainant’s registration of the MADD mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office establishes the complainant’s rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

The Panel finds that the <whitnetbank.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WHITNEY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as the disputed domain name contains a misspelled version of Complainant’s mark combined with the term “bank,” which has an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business, and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”  Combining a misspelled version of Complainant’s mark, as the disputed domain name substitutes the letter “t” for the letter “y” found at the end of Complainant’s mark, together with a term that describes Complainant’s business, does not negate the confusing similarity between Complainant’s mark and Respondent’s disputed domain name.  Moreover, the addition of a gTLD does not affect the analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), as a top-level domain is required for all domain names.  See Belkin Components v. Gallant, FA 97075 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2001) (finding the <belken.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's BELKIN mark because the name merely replaced the letter “i” in the complainant's mark with the letter “e”); see also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that the <hoylecasino.net> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s HOYLE mark, and that the addition of “casino,” a generic word describing the type of business in which the complainant is engaged, does not take the disputed domain name out of the realm of confusing similarity); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.      

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant must establish a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <whitnetbank.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  Once Complainant satisfies that burden, as the Panel deems Complainant to have done here, the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests under the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(c).  See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. 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.”); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). 

 

Nothing in the record, including Respondent’s WHOIS information, indicates that Respondent is or has ever been commonly known by the <whitnetbank.com> domain name.  Moreover, Complainant states that Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s mark in any way.  Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark); see also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail").

 

Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website that displays hyperlinks to various third-party websites, some of which are in direct competition with Complainant.  Such use of the <whitnetbank.com> domain name, which is presumably for Respondent’s commercial gain through the earning of click-through fees, 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 Charles Letts & Co. v. Citipublications, FA 692150 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to display links to the complainant’s competitors did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.       

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent’s <whitnetbank.com> domain name is being used to display hyperlinks to third-party websites, presumably for Respondent’s own commercial benefit through the accrual of click-through fees.  Moreover, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, and as such, the <whitnetbank.com> domain name is capable of creating a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s source, sponsorship, endorsement or affiliation with the disputed domain name and corresponding website.  Such use is indicative of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent directed Internet users seeking the complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain).

 

Additionally, as the disputed domain name resolves to a website where some hyperlinks to websites in direct competition with Complainant are displayed, the <whitnetbank.com> domain name is being used to disrupt Complainant’s business, which is bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites); see also Puckett, Individually v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent has diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.      

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <whitnetbank.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist

Dated:  September 17, 2007

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum