The Royal Bank of Scotland
Group plc v. Debra J. Stromer
Claim Number: FA0803001169982
PARTIES
Complainant is The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (“Complainant”), represented by James
A. Thomas, of Troutman Sanders LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <rbsukonline.net>, registered with Melbourne
It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide.
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.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on March 27, 2008; the
National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 27, 2008.
On March 28, 2008, Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide
confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <rbsukonline.net>
domain name is registered with Melbourne It,
Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide and that the Respondent is the
current registrant of the name. Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide
has verified that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne
It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide 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 March 28, 2008, a Notification
of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement
Notification”), setting a deadline of April 17, 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@rbsukonline.net by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 1, 2008.
On April 9, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant alleges, among other things, that:
Complainant
is one of the world’s leading financial services groups.
Complainant is widely known by the trademark “RBS” which it uses in promoting and providing banking, financial
planning, insurance and brokerage services worldwide.
Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations for its RBS mark, including one with the United States
Patent and Trademark Office (Reg. No. 3,185,538, registered December 19, 2006).
An important part of Complainant’s business is online banking services, by which it offers a secure online banking gateway accessed through its website.
In
conjunction with these services, Complainant owns numerous domain name
registrations that feature its well-known “RBS” mark, including
<rbs.com>, <rbs-online.co.uk> and <online-rbs.co.uk>.
Respondent
registered the disputed domain name on December 5, 2007.
The disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RBS mark because it fully
incorporates the mark, with only the additions of a geographically descriptive
term (“
Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website purporting to be Complainant’s official website, thus creating the strong likelihood of confusion among Internet users as between Complainant and Respondent.
Respondent has no right to or legitimate interest in the contested domain name, and Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the RBS mark, or any variation thereof, in the domain name or otherwise.
Respondent’s
website to which the domain name had resolved has been taken down, so that it
currently does not resolve to an active website.
Respondent is not and has not been commonly known by the
name <rbsukonline.net>.
Complainant’s RBS mark is a registered
trademark and well-known around the world, so that Respondent is deemed to have
had constructive knowledge of this mark when it registered the contested domain
name.
Respondent has used its domain name to
perpetrate a fraud on Internet users in order to acquire personal information
from Complainant’s current and prospective customers.
Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain
name in bad faith.
B. Respondent asserts, among other things, that:
Respondent did not register the disputed domain name, and had never
heard of the domain name before the Complaint herein was served on it.
Respondent had likewise never heard of Complainant before the
institution of these proceedings.
It is possible that Respondent has become the victim of a computer
virus.
Respondent does not wish to be further involved in this proceeding.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course,
Complainant must prove each of the following to obtain from a Panel an order
that a domain name be transferred:
i.
the
domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
ii.
Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii.
the domain name
has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Paragraph 15(a) of
the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”
Further, Policy ¶ 3(a) provides for the transfer of a domain name registration upon the written instructions of the parties to a UDRP proceeding without the need for otherwise required findings and conclusions. See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004; see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005).
DECISION
Respondent’s Response does not contest the material allegations of the
Complaint, and, in particular, it does not contest Complainant’s request that
the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. Thus the parties have
effectively agreed in writing to a transfer of the subject domain name from
Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <rbsukonline.net>
domain name be forthwith TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: April 14, 2008
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum