National Westminster Bank PLC v. NatWest Bank
Claim Number: FA0803001164284
Complainant is National Westminster Bank PLC (“Complainant”), represented by James
A.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <natwestuk-online.net>, registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide.
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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On March 20, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 9, 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@natwestuk-online.net by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <natwestuk-online.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NATWEST mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <natwestuk-online.net> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <natwestuk-online.net> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, National Westminster Bank, is a leading
financial institution based in the
Respondent registered the <natwestuk-online.net> domain name on
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.
Registration with the USPTO establishes rights in Complainant’s
NATWEST mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See
Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher,
D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) ("Panel decisions have held that
registration of a mark is prima facie evidence
of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently
distinctive."); see also Vivendi
Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Complainant contends that Respondent’s <natwestuk-online.net> domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s NATWEST mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent’s disputed domain name contains
Complainant’s mark in its entirety, adds the generic term “online,” the generic
geographic description “uk,” a hyphen and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”)
“.net.” The Panel finds that the
additions of a generic geopraphic term and the generic term “online,” fail to
distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark and create confusing similarity
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Net2phone Inc. v. Netcall
SAGL, D2000-0666 (WIPO
The
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the <natwestuk-online.net> domain name. Once Complainant make a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds that in this case Complainant has established a prima facie case. See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“[I]t 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.”).
Due to the failure of Respondent to respond to the
Complaint, the Panel assumes that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name. See CMGI,
Inc. v. Reyes, D2000-0572 (WIPO
Complainant asserts that Respondent is neither commonly known by the <natwestuk-online.net> domain name, nor licensed to register domain names using the NATWEST mark. The Respondent’s WHOIS information lists Respondent as “NatWest Bank Uk Online.” However, the Panel finds that without any affirmative evidence that Respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name before Respondent’s disputed domain name registration, Respondent lacks all rights and legitimiate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Yoga Works, Inc. v. Arpita, FA 155461 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not “commonly known by” the <shantiyogaworks.com> domain name despite listing its name as “Shanti Yoga Works” in its WHOIS contact information because there was “no affirmative evidence before the Panel that the respondent was ever ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name prior to its registration of the disputed domain name”); see also City News & Video v. Citynewsandvideo, FA 244789 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 5, 2004) (“Although Respondent’s WHOIS information lists its name as ‘citynewsandvideo,’ there is no evidence before the Panel to indicate that Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the disputed domain name <citynewsandvideo.com> pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”).
Complainant contends that Respondent is using the <natwestuk-online.net> domain name in order to attract Internet users by using a confusingly similar disputed domain name. Then, in an effort to obtain confidential information from Internet which is commonly known as “phishing,” Respondent is passing itself off as Complaiant in order to cause Internet users to enter sensitive information. The Panel finds that this type of activity is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use purusuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Crow v. LOVEARTH.net, FA 203208 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 28, 2003) (“It is neither a bona fide offerings [sic] of goods or services, nor an example of a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii) when the holder of a domain name, confusingly similar to a registered mark, attempts to profit by passing itself off as Complainant . . . .”); see also Vivendi Universal Games v. Ballard, FA 146621 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2002) (stating that where the respondent copied the complainant’s website in order to steal account information from the complainant’s customers, that the respondent’s “exploitation of the goodwill and consumer trust surrounding the BLIZZARD NORTH mark to aid in its illegal activities is prima facie evidence of a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of the <natwestuk-online.net> domain name in order to fraudulently obtain unknowing Internet users’ confidential information by using a confusingly similar disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith. The Panel finds that such activities constitute phishing, and demonstrate bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Iza, FA 245960 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2004) (finding evidence of bad faith when a domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, redirects Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s billing website, and is used to fraudulently acquire personal information from Complainant’s clients); see also Capital One Fin. Corp. v. Howel, FA 289304 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding bad faith registration and use because the respondent used the domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that imitated the complainant’s website in order to fraudulently acquire personal information from the complainant’s clients).
Respondent’s use of the <natwestuk-online.net>
domain name
in order to disrupt business prospects of Complainant by diverting unknowning
Internet users is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Puckett, Individually v. Miller,
D2000-0297 (WIPO
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <natwestuk-online.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: April 29, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum