national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Bank of America Corporation v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.

Claim Number: FA0801001141937

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Bank of America Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Randel S. Springer, of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, North Carolina, USA.  Respondent is Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. (“Respondent”), Washington, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <bankofamrica.com>, <bankofamericacreditcards.com>, <abnkofamerica.com>, <bankofamercica.com>, <bankofamarika.com>, <bankocamerica.com>, <bank-of-america-mortgage-loans.info>, <bankaamerica.com>, <bankofamericamyaccount.com>, <bankofamrcia.com>, <bankofamiraca.com>, <bankofamirca.com>, and <bankofcamerica.com>, registered with Enom, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 31, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 1, 2008.

 

On January 31, 2008, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <bankofamrica.com>, <bankofamericacreditcards.com>, <abnkofamerica.com>, <bankofamercica.com>, <bankofamarika.com>, <bankocamerica.com>, <bank-of-america-mortgage-loans.info>, <bankaamerica.com>, <bankofamericamyaccount.com>, <bankofamrcia.com>, <bankofamiraca.com>, <bankofamirca.com>, and <bankofcamerica.com> domain names are registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, Inc. 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 February 14, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 5, 2008 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@bankofamrica.com, postmaster@bankofamericacreditcards.com, postmaster@abnkofamerica.com, postmaster@bankofamercica.com, postmaster@bankofamarika.com, postmaster@bankocamerica.com, postmaster@bank-of-america-mortgage-loans.info, postmaster@bankaamerica.com, postmaster@bankofamericamyaccount.com, postmaster@bankofamrcia.com, postmaster@bankofamiraca.com, postmaster@bankofamirca.com, and postmaster@bankofcamerica.com by e-mail.

 

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

 

On March 13, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <bankofamrica.com>, <bankofamericacreditcards.com>, <abnkofamerica.com>, <bankofamercica.com>, <bankofamarika.com>, <bankocamerica.com>, <bank-of-america-mortgage-loans.info>, <bankaamerica.com>, <bankofamericamyaccount.com>, <bankofamrcia.com>, <bankofamiraca.com>, <bankofamirca.com>, and <bankofcamerica.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <bankofamrica.com>, <bankofamericacreditcards.com>, <abnkofamerica.com>, <bankofamercica.com>, <bankofamarika.com>, <bankocamerica.com>, <bank-of-america-mortgage-loans.info>, <bankaamerica.com>, <bankofamericamyaccount.com>, <bankofamrcia.com>, <bankofamiraca.com>, <bankofamirca.com>, and <bankofcamerica.com> domain names.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <bankofamrica.com>, <bankofamericacreditcards.com>, <abnkofamerica.com>, <bankofamercica.com>, <bankofamarika.com>, <bankocamerica.com>, <bank-of-america-mortgage-loans.info>, <bankaamerica.com>, <bankofamericamyaccount.com>, <bankofamrcia.com>, <bankofamiraca.com>, <bankofamirca.com>, and <bankofcamerica.com> domain names in bad faith.

 

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

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Bank of America Corporation, is the second largest banking company in the world.  Complainant and its predecessors-in-interest have used the BANK OF AMERICA mark to distinguish its banking services since 1928 and Complainant currently operates over 5,800 banking centers in the United States, along with international offices in thirty-five countries.  Complainant holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the BANK OF AMERICA mark (Reg. No. 853,860 issued July 30, 1968).  In addition, Complainant owns several domain names incorporating the BANK OF AMERICA mark, including the <bankofamerica.com> domain name.

 

Respondent registered the <bankofamrica.com>, <bankofamericacreditcards.com>, <abnkofamerica.com>, <bankofamercica.com>, <bankofamarika.com>, <bankocamerica.com>, <bank-of-america-mortgage-loans.info>, <bankaamerica.com>, <bankofamericamyaccount.com>, <bankofamrcia.com>, <bankofamiraca.com>, <bankofamirca.com>, and <bankofcamerica.com> domain names between February 2004 and March 2007.  The disputed domain names all resolve to websites that include Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA mark and contain links to third-party websites that offer banking services in direct competition with 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

 

The Panel first finds that Complainant’s registration of the BANK OF AMERICA mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in the mark as required by Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”); see also U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. MS Tech. Inc., FA 198898 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 9, 2003) (“[O]nce the USPTO has made a determination that a mark is registrable, by so issuing a registration, as indeed was the case here, an ICANN panel is not empowered to nor should it disturb that determination.”).

 

With respect to whether the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, the Panel initially notes that, as a top-level domain is a required element of all domain names, Respondent’s addition of the generic top-level domains “.com” and “.info” is irrelevant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”); see also Nev. State Bank v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 204063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“It has been established that the addition of a generic top-level domain is irrelevant when considering whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar under the Policy.”).

 

Respondent’s <bankofamrica.com>, <abnkofamerica.com>, <bankofamercica.com>, <bankofamarika.com>, <bankocamerica.com>, <bankaamerica.com>, <bankofamrcia.com>, <bankofamiraca.com>, <bankofamirca.com>, and <bankofcamerica.com> domain names all constitute common misspellings of Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA mark; they add additional letters, delete letters, and/or transpose letters in the mark, without changing the overall impression of the mark.  Previous panels have found, and this Panels so find, that such common misspellings constitute typosquatting and do not render the disputed domain names distinct from the mark.  Therefore, the Panel concludes that the <bankofamrica.com>, <abnkofamerica.com>, <bankofamercica.com>, <bankofamarika.com>, <bankocamerica.com>, <bankaamerica.com>, <bankofamrcia.com>, <bankofamiraca.com>, <bankofamirca.com>, and <bankofcamerica.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. Party Night, Inc., FA 114546 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 23, 2002) (finding that the <neimanmacus.com> domain name was a simple misspelling of the complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark and was a classic example of typosquatting, which was evidence that the domain name was confusingly similar to the mark); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks); see also Google Inc. v. Jon G., FA 106084 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2002) (finding <googel.com> to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s GOOGLE mark and noting that “[t]he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity, as the result reflects a very probable typographical error”).

 

In the same way, Respondent’s <bankofamericacreditcards.com>, <bankofamericamyaccount.com>, and <bank-of-america-mortgage-loans.info> also incorporate Complainant’s entire BANK OF AMERICA mark and simply add the generic terms “credit,” “cards,” “my,” “account,” “mortgage,” and “loans,” which are clearly descriptive of Complainant’s banking and other financial services.  These additional terms are not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark.  In addition, Respondent’s addition of hyphens in the <bank-of-america-mortgage-loans.info> is similarly insufficient to distinguish that disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark.  Thus, the Panel also concludes that the <bankofamericacreditcards.com>, <bankofamericamyaccount.com>, and <bank-of-america-mortgage-loans.info> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business); see also Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), once Complainant makes a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <bankofamrica.com>, <bankofamericacreditcards.com>, <abnkofamerica.com>, <bankofamercica.com>, <bankofamarika.com>, <bankocamerica.com>, <bank-of-america-mortgage-loans.info>, <bankaamerica.com>, <bankofamericamyaccount.com>, <bankofamrcia.com>, <bankofamiraca.com>, <bankofamirca.com>, and <bankofcamerica.com> domain names, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to refute that showing.  In the instant case, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case as required by the Policy.  See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).

 

Respondent’s failure to answer the Complaint raises the presumption that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.  See Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence).  Nevertheless, the Panel will still examine the record to determine any rights or legitimate interests Respondent may have in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent’s <bankofamrica.com>, <bankofamericacreditcards.com>, <abnkofamerica.com>, <bankofamercica.com>, <bankofamarika.com>, <bankocamerica.com>, <bank-of-america-mortgage-loans.info>, <bankaamerica.com>, <bankofamericamyaccount.com>, <bankofamrcia.com>, <bankofamiraca.com>, <bankofamirca.com>, and <bankofcamerica.com> domain names all resolve to websites that display links to third-party websites offering banking and other financial services in direct competition with Complainant.  The Panel presumes that Respondent earns click-through fees from these links, and thus finds that Respondent’s use does not constitute either 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).  See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also Gardens Alive, Inc. v. D&S Linx, FA 203126 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20, 2003) (finding that the respondent used a domain name for commercial benefit by diverting Internet users to a website that sold goods and services similar to those offered by the complainant and thus, was not using the name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).

 

The WHOIS information for each of the disputed domain names indicates that Respondent is “Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.,” and the Panel finds no further evidence in the record to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names.  In addition, Complainant contends that it has never authorized or permitted Respondent to use its BANK OF AMERICA mark for any purpose.  Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and thus lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) the respondent is not a licensee of the complainant; (2) the complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede the respondent’s registration; (3) the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question).

 

Furthermore, the Panel finds that the <bankofamrica.com>, <abnkofamerica.com>, <bankofamercica.com>, <bankofamarika.com>, <bankocamerica.com>, <bankaamerica.com>, <bankofamrcia.com>, <bankofamiraca.com>, <bankofamirca.com>, and <bankofcamerica.com> domain names are typosquatted versions of Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA mark.  Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), this typosquatting further indicates Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in these disputed domain names.  See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Ebeyer, FA 175292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2003) (finding that the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because it “engaged in the practice of typosquatting by taking advantage of Internet users who attempt to access Complainant's <indymac.com> website but mistakenly misspell Complainant's mark by typing the letter ‘x’ instead of the letter ‘c’”); see also LTD Commodities LLC v. Party Night, Inc., FA 165155 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 14, 2003) (finding that the <ltdcommadities.com>, <ltdcommmodities.com>, and <ltdcommodaties.com> domain names were intentional misspellings of Complainant's LTD COMMODITIES mark and this “‘typosquatting’ is evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names”).

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

As mentioned above, Respondent is using the <bankofamrica.com>, <bankofamericacreditcards.com>, <abnkofamerica.com>, <bankofamercica.com>, <bankofamarika.com>, <bankocamerica.com>, <bank-of-america-mortgage-loans.info>, <bankaamerica.com>, <bankofamericamyaccount.com>, <bankofamrcia.com>, <bankofamiraca.com>, <bankofamirca.com>, and <bankofcamerica.com> domain names to display links to third-party websites that directly compete with Complainant.  The Panel finds, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), that this constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and indicates that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.  See EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding that the minor degree of variation from the complainant's marks suggests that the respondent, the complainant’s competitor, registered the names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the complainant's business); 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)).

 

Moreover, the Panel presumes that Respondent benefits commercially when Internet users click on the links displayed on the websites that resolve from each of the disputed domain names.  The Panel thus concludes that Respondent is profiting off the likelihood that users will be confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain names, and is taking advantage of the goodwill associated with the BANK OF AMERICA mark.  This is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the <bankofamrica.com>, <bankofamericacreditcards.com>, <abnkofamerica.com>, <bankofamercica.com>, <bankofamarika.com>, <bankocamerica.com>, <bank-of-america-mortgage-loans.info>, <bankaamerica.com>, <bankofamericamyaccount.com>, <bankofamrcia.com>, <bankofamiraca.com>, <bankofamirca.com>, and <bankofcamerica.com> domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Shafir, FA 196119 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 10, 2003) (“As Respondent is using the domain name at issue in direct competition with Complainant, and giving the impression of being affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant, this circumstance qualifies as bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if the respondent profits from its diversionary use of the complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and the respondent fails to contest the complaint, it may be concluded that the respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).

 

Finally, the typosquatted nature of the <bankofamrica.com>, <abnkofamerica.com>, <bankofamercica.com>, <bankofamarika.com>, <bankocamerica.com>, <bankaamerica.com>, <bankofamrcia.com>, <bankofamiraca.com>, <bankofamirca.com>, and <bankofcamerica.com> domain names also indicates that Respondent registered and is using these disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Zone Labs, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 190613 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (“Respondent’s registration and use of [the <zonelarm.com> domain name] that capitalizes on the typographical error of an Internet user is considered typosquatting. Typosquatting, itself is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Dermalogica, Inc. v. Domains to Develop, FA 175201 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2003) (finding that the <dermatalogica.com> domain name was a “simple misspelling” of the complainant's DERMALOGICA mark which indicated typosquatting and bad faith pursuant to Policy 4 ¶ (a)(iii)).

 

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

 

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 <bankofamrica.com>, <bankofamericacreditcards.com>, <abnkofamerica.com>, <bankofamercica.com>, <bankofamarika.com>, <bankocamerica.com>, <bank-of-america-mortgage-loans.info>, <bankaamerica.com>, <bankofamericamyaccount.com>, <bankofamrcia.com>, <bankofamiraca.com>, <bankofamirca.com>, and <bankofcamerica.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist

Dated:  March 25, 2008

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum