BB&T Corporation v.
Donald Walker
Claim Number: FA0804001177130
PARTIES
Complainant is BB&T Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Lisa
McDougald, of BB&T Corporation,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <bbandtfinancial.com>, <bbandtfinancialservices.com>,
<bbandtmortgageloan.com>, <bbandtmortgageloans.com>, <bbandtautoloan.com>, <bbandtautoloans.com>, <bbandtcd.com>, <bbandtcds.com>, <bbandtstocks.com>, <1800bbandtbank.com>, <1800bankbbt.com> and <1800bbtbank.com>,
registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and
impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving
as Panelist in this proceeding.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on April 8, 2008; the
National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 9, 2008.
On April 10, 2008, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the
National Arbitration Forum that the <bbandtfinancial.com>, <bbandtfinancialservices.com>,
<bbandtmortgageloan.com>, <bbandtmortgageloans.com>, <bbandtautoloan.com>, <bbandtautoloans.com>, <bbandtcd.com>, <bbandtcds.com>, <bbandtstocks.com>, <1800bbandtbank.com>, <1800bankbbt.com> and <1800bbtbank.com> domain
names are registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Godaddy.com,
Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, 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 April 10, 2008, a Notification
of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement
Notification”), setting a deadline of April 30, 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@bbandtfinancial.com, postmaster@bbandtfinancialservices.com, postmaster@bbandtmortgageloan.com, postmaster@bbandtmortgageloans.com, postmaster@bbandtautoloan.com, postmaster@bbandtautoloans.com, postmaster@bbandtcd.com, postmaster@bbandtcds.com, postmaster@bbandtstocks.com, postmaster@1800bbandtbank.com, postmaster@1800bankbbt.com and postmaster@1800bbtbank.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 24, 2008.
A timely Additional Submission was received and determined to be
complete on April 25, 2008.
On April 30, 2008 pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent
to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant BB&T Corporation ("BB&T") is a well-known
Respondent, acting in bad faith, has registered and is using the
following domain names for commercial purposes to direct Internet users to
various websites at the following locations:<bbandtfinancial.com>,
<bbandtfinanciaiservices.com>,
<bbandtmortgageloan.com>, <bbandtmortgageloans.com>,
<bbandtautoloan.com>, <bbandtautoloans.com>,
<bbandtcd.com>, <bbandtcds.com>,
<bbandtstocks.com>, <1800bbandtbank.com>,
<1800bankbbt.com> and <1800bbtbankcom>.
These websites are not in any way sponsored, approved, promoted by, or
associated with BB&T. Respondent's domain names made the subject of this
proceeding are confusingly similar to Complainant's marks and domain names.
Respondent has no preexisting rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
at-issue domain names.
BB&T obtained several
registrations of its BB&T mark and variations thereof, including U.S.
Service Mark Registration Nos. 1,382,662 issued February 11, 1986 (BB&T
(stylized)), 2,428,089 issued February 13, 2001 (WWW.BBANDT.COM), 2,614,387
issued September 3, 2002 (BBANDT.COM), 2,895,994 issued October 19, 2004
(BBT.COM), and 2,923,542 issued February I, 2005 (BBT) (collectively, the
"BB&T Marks"). The BB&T (stylized) registration is
incontestable and, as such, is conclusive evidence of Complainant's exclusive
right to use the BB&T mark in commerce in the
The services of Complainant have been advertised and promoted extensively under the BB&T Marks in various forms of media. Complainant, through affiliated entities, also owns the domain names <bbandt.com> and <bbt.com>. These domain names are used to direct Internet users to Complainant's website having the URL www.BBT.com. That website is an important part of Complainant's marketing program and is used to promote Complainant's wide variety of financial services. In advertising and promoting its services to the public under its proprietary marks, trade names, and domain names, Complainant has spent millions of dollars annually.
These designations have a distinctive quality and have acquired special and particular significance and very valuable goodwill as identifying Complainant and its banking and financial services, so that when members of the public in the United States and elsewhere see or hear such marks and trade names, they automatically think of Complainant. Consequently, through such usage and recognition, Complainant has acquired common law rights in the BB&T marks as proprietary trade names and service marks, which rights extend, without limitation, to the exclusive right to use the BB&T marks in the United States in association with financial services, and the right to prevent others from using any marks, domain names, or other designations that are confusingly similar thereto.
Respondent’s websites are not sponsored or approved by Complainant. Respondent's websites provide links to the websites of third-party financial services providers. Thus, Respondent is using the domain names to direct users to commercial websites, notwithstanding that Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of said domain names, and the subject domain names are confusingly similar to the BB&T marks.
Respondent has a history of registering and using domain names incorporating third-party trademarks, service marks, and trade names.
The at-issue domain names are confusingly similar to the BB&T marks. Complainant owns valid statutory rights in the BB&T marks in the United States by virtue of its registration of these marks in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (U.S. Service Mark Reg. Nos. 1,382,662, 2,428,089, 2,614,387, 2,895,994, and 2,923,542). Complainant's service mark registrations predate Respondent's registration and use of the at-issue domain names.
All of the at-issue domain names are identical to Complaint's BB&T and BBANDT.COM marks, except that they each include generic or descriptive terms. These additional terms confirm a clear and purposeful association with Complainant and its services.
Since Respondent registered and began using the at-issue domain names long after Complainant acquired rights in its marks, Complainant satisfied the first element of proof under the UDRP.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain names. Respondent is not a bank, investment firm, or other financial institution and has no rights in "BB&T" or "BBandT.com" as trademarks, service marks, or trade names. Respondent is not commonly known by any of the at-issue domain names. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use Complainant's BB&T marks, and the WHOIS information does not suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names.
Respondent has registered and is using the at-issue domain names in bad faith. The subject domains are being "used" inasmuch as they link to active websites accessible via the Internet. Without any preexisting rights in any of the at-issue domain names as trademarks, service marks, or trade names, it may be assumed that Respondent adopted, registered and has used the at-issue domain names based on the fame and goodwill associated with the BB&T marks. Respondent is appropriating the BB&T marks for use in confusingly similar domain names to refer Internet users to competitors and to sites for "Bank of America," "Wachovia Bank," "Online Banking Services," "Mortgage Lenders," and "Stocks." It is reasonable to infer that Respondent is receiving "click-through" fees for these referrals. Respondent's diversion of Internet users who are seeking Complainant's website by use of misleading domain names for Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods and services and constitutes bad faith. Respondent has registered such domain names as <WachoviaMortgageLoan.com>, <HomeDepotHomelmprovements.com>, <LowesHomeProjects.com>, <ARSPlumbingService.com>, and <RotoRooterCommercial.com>, which are confusingly similar to or incorporate third-party trademarks and/or service marks.
B. Respondent
Respondent contends as follows:
Respondent purchased almost 200 domain names for private use. None have been sold and no websites referenced by the domain names are in use now or have ever been in use.
Respondent does not own a business of any kind that any domain names could be used in. Respondent has read the domain name laws for companies that hold trademarks and understands such companies do not want someone passing themselves off as them.
Complainant sent Respondent e-mails when it learned that Respondent purchased some of the at-issue domain names. Respondent has not advertised any domain names for sale.
None of the domain names owned by
Respondent are in use. None of the domain names are linked to a website and
never will be. None are offered for sale. Domain names may be confusing or
similar to a trademark name.
Respondent purchased the domain names with his own funds. He thought of the names. Respondent listed his name and address publically in case there were any questions. Respondent has a legal right when he comes up with a certain name and purchase it. If BB&T wanted the names, it would have registered the names.
Purchasing the at-issue domain names does not constitute bad faith. Respondent has not offered any of the at-issue domain names for sale, none have websites and none have any advertising whatsoever linked to them.
Respondent is not getting “Click Through” or “referrals” from the at-issue domain names. Such is not possible since none of the at-issue domain names are active, none are for sale and none are advertised.
C. Additional Submissions
Complainant additionally contends as follows:
Respondent claims that the subject domain names are not in use;
however, the subject domain names resolve to webpages incorporating
Complainant's BB&T marks and displaying links to businesses that directly
compete with Complainant's services.
Respondent sets forth no evidence, authority, or arguments to
substantiate any claim of right or legitimate interests in any of the subject
domain names. Respondent admits he does "not own a business of any kind
that any domain names could be used in." The domain names resolve to
websites hosted by GoDaddy.com and display links to businesses that directly
compete with Complainant's services.
Respondent claims to have a legal right to the at-issue domain names
because he "purchased it with his own funds and thought of the names.”
This is not sufficient, however, to establish rights or interests in the
disputed domains.
Respondent claims the subject domains are not "active" and
that he is not receiving "click through" fees. The domain names
resolve to websites hosted by GoDaddy.com and display links to businesses that
directly compete with Complainant's services. GoDaddy.com provides parking
services to domain name owners utilizing its domain registration services.
Although the websites referenced by the at-issue domain names may be operated
by a domain parking service, Respondent has given such service provider
permission to use the domain names. Although the websites accessed via the
at-issue domain names may be operated by domain parking service providers, that
activity is legally and practically attributable back to Respondent.
Respondent has expressly authorized the activities being carried on by
the domain parking service providers, either specifically or by carte
blanche. Respondent is aware of the general nature of the services provided
by those organizations and the business model that they employ.
Respondent, in collaboration with the domain parking service providers,
is exploiting Complainant’s goodwill. Even if Respondent is not directly
receiving click-through referral fees generated by the at-issue domain names,
parties are earning fees that Respondent has licensed or otherwise authorized
to use the at-issue domain names. The service providers who operate the
websites are only able to earn those fees as a consequence of the
license/authorization granted by Respondent.
Respondent has not granted such licenses/authorization to third party
services for charitable reasons or for intellectual stimulation. If Respondent
is allowing its domain name broker or its domain parking service provider to
earn revenues from the at-issue domain names, Respondent is doing so for a
business reason.
FINDINGS
Complainant has trademark rights in BBANDT by
virtue of its registration of the mark BB&T with the United States Patent
and Trademark Office, and otherwise.
The at-issue domain names contain marks
covered by Complainant’s trademarks.
Respondent registered the at-issue domain
names with knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights in BB&T.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interest in respect of the at-issue domain names.
Respondent registered and used the at-issue
domain names in bad faith.
DISCUSSION
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.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights;
(2) the 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.
Complainant registered its BB&T mark, and variants thereof, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on February 11, 1986. Complainant’s registration of its BB&T mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish Complainant’s rights in its BB&T mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Expedia, Inc. v. Inertia 3D, FA 1118154 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 18, 2008) (“Complainant asserts rights in the mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. This registration sufficiently establishes Complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive [or] have acquired secondary meaning.”). The BBANDT mark is identical in sound, sight and meaning to the trademark BB&T. Furthermore, Complainant offers additional independent evidence of its trademark rights in BB&T/BBANDT.
Respondent’s <bbandtfinancial.com>, <bbandtfinancialservices.com>, <bbandtmortgageloan.com>, <bbandtmortgageloans.com>, <bbandtautoloan.com>, <bbandtautoloans.com>,
<bbandtcd.com>, <bbandtcds.com>, <bbandtstocks.com> and <1800bbandtbank.com> domain names
each contain Complainant’s BB&T mark with the mere substition of the word
“and” in place of the ampersand sign and the addition of generic and/or
descriptive terms and numbers. These trivial differences do not distinguish
Respondent’s at-issue domain names from Complainant’s BB&T mark. Therefore,
these domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wright & Lato, Inc. v. Epstein, D2000-0621 (WIPO Sept. 2, 2000) (finding that the
<wrightandlato.com> domain name is identical to the complainant’s WRIGHT
& LATO mark, because the ampersand symbol (&) is not reproducible in a
URL); see also 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 Am.
Int’l Group, Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, FA 206399 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 15,
2003) (finding that the addition of the term “assurance,” to the complainant’s
AIG mark failed to sufficiently differentiate the name from the mark under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the appended term related directly to the
complainant’s business); see also Gorstew
Ltd. v. Berkshire Trust, FA 95430 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 20, 2000) (finding that the <1800beaches.com>
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BEACHES mark).
Similarly, Respondent’s <1800bankbbt.com> and <1800bbtbank.com> domain names each incorporate Complainant’s BB&T mark with the deletion of the ampersand sign and the addition of the numerals “1800” and the descriptive term “bank.” Likewise, these alterations do not significantly distinguish these disputed domain names from Complainant’s BB&T mark. Therefore these domain names are likewise confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See McKinsey Holdings, Inc. v. Indidom, D2000-1616 (WIPO Jan. 31, 2001) (finding that the removal of the ampersand from “McKinsey & Company” does not affect the user’s understanding of the domain name, and therefore the domain name <mckinseycompany.com> is identical and/or confusingly similar to the mark “McKinsey & Company”); see also Homer TLC, Inc. v. Montauk Asset Mgmt., FA 467966 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 10, 2005) (finding that Respondent’s <1800homedepot.com> domain name was confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOME DEPOT mark because it merely added the generic or descriptive “1800” prefix); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Anytime Online Traffic Sch., FA 146930 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 11, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s domain names, which incorporated the complainant’s entire mark and merely added the descriptive terms “traffic school,” “defensive driving,” and “driver improvement” did not add any distinctive features capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. 1 Netpower, Inc., D2000-0022 (WIPO Mar. 3, 2000) (finding that four domain names that added the descriptive words "fashion" or "cosmetics" after the trademark were confusingly similar to the trademark).
All of Respondent’s disputed domain names contain the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Because a top-level domain is a required element of every domain name, the addition of the gTLD “.com” is irrelevant in considering whether Respondent’s at-issue domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) ("[T]he addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is . . . without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants . . . ."); see also Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (“The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.”).
Finally we note that Respondent does not coherently dispute either Complainant’s trademark rights or that the at-issue domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. Therefore, the Panel finds the at-issue domain names confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy Complainant must first make out a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The threshold for such showing is low. See Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. v. Samjo CellTech.Ltd, FA 406512 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2005). Once a prima facie case is established, the burden then shifts to Respondent who must demonstrate that it nevertheless has rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name or names.
Complainant did not authorize Respondent to use its BB&T mark. Respondent is neither affiliated with, nor commonly known as, BB&T as the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name indicates that Respondent is not BB&T. The Panel therefore concludes that Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights and interest in the at-issue domain names and thus the burden shifts to Respondent to affirmatively show that he has rights or interests in the at-issue domain names. As discussed below, Respondent fails to meet his burden.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists three circumstances in particular, without limitation, that may demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interest in respect of a domain name, for the purposes of ¶ 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. To wit:
(i) before any notice of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services; or
(ii) the Respondent, as an individual, business, or other organization, has been commonly known by the domain name, even if no trademark or service mark rights have been acquired; or
(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Policy ¶ 4(c).
Respondent is not commonly known by
the domain names and has not been granted rights in such names. Thus, Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not support Respondent’s position. Respondent is using the domain names to provide
information and advertisments for products and services directly competitive
with Complainant’s business. Respondent
denies that it is using the domain names at all. Complainant replies that Respondent
has authorized a third party to use the domain names and therefore he is effectively
using the domain names. The Panel infers that Respondent, or a third party, derives
revenue or some other benefit from the use of the at-issue domain names through
the accrual of referral or click-through fees, or otherwise. To the extend that
such business use is directly or indirectly attributable to Respondent is no
defense. Such use would not be bona fide pursuant to 4(c)(i). See Computerized Sec. Sys.,
Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s
appropriation of [Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to market products that compete
with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and
services.”); Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that
the respondent was not using the domain name within the parameters of Policy ¶¶
4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage
of the complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to a competing commercial
site). Perhaps more significantly, Respondent admits that he is not
using the domain names and thus cannot credibly also claim that he is
using them pursuant to Policy 4(c)(i).
Respondent claims that he has rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain names because he came up with, registered and paid the registration fees for the domain names and is not operating any websites referenced by the disputed domain names. However, Respondent has not shown that he has rights in BB&T or BBANDT as trademarks, service marks, or trade names, or otherwise. Registration alone is not enough to establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Vestel Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret AS v. Kahveci, D2000-1244 (WIPO Nov. 11, 2000) (“Merely registering the domain name is not sufficient to establish rights or legitimate interests for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”). Importantly and as also discussed below with regard to bad faith registration and use, Respondent’s pattern of registering domain names that contain Complainant’s trademark, as well as his registration of the trademarks of third parties, suggests that Respondent came up with the particular domain names precisely because of his awareness of the Complainant’s trademark, and not simply through happenstance.
Finally, Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) does not act to substantiate Respondent’s claim of rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain names. Respondent cannot argue that he is making “fair use” of the at-issue domain names where, as here, the websites referenced by the domain names contain links to commercial services not sponsored, authorized or endorsed by Complainant. As noted elsewhere, the fact that the referenced websites were not directly setup by Respondent or that he does not directly benefit from the particular webpages referenced by the at-issue domain names, is of no consequence.
Respondent has not satisfied his burden and therefore the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks legitimate rights or interests in respect of each of the at-issue domain names.
Respondent’s at-issue domain names display links to Complainant’s competitors on websites created by the registrar to park domain names registered by its customers. Although Respondent does not directly operate these websites, Respondent ultimately controls the DNS entries for each of the at-issue domain names. As the registrant of the at-issue domain names, Respondent alone may allow the domain names to resolve to the default pages conceived by the registrar or may instead direct his domain names to reference some other location. See XM Satellite Radio Inc. v. Kennedy, FA 796199 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 7, 2006) (“While Respondent undoubtedly parked the domain names with GoDaddy, he is responsible for the content he allows GoDaddy to put on his domains. Respondent could have equally well set up his own ‘parked’ page without any inappropriate content.”). Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain names to link to Complainant’s competitors constitutes disruption and is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See H-D Michigan Inc. v. Buell d/b/a Pre-owned Harleys, FA 1106640 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2008) (“The disputed domain names resolve to websites that list links to competitors of Complainant, evidence that Respondent intends to disrupt Complainant’s business, is a further indication of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding the respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with the complainant’s business).
Respondent’s pattern of registering an array of domain names each
containing Complainant’s trademark and most containing a description of a
service that may be or is offered by Complainant, is also telling. Absent any
other credible explanation, it reveals that Respondent’s purpose in registering
the domain names was to capitalize on the goodwill that he believed attached to
Complainant’s trademarks and in the process cause confusion as to the source or
sponsorship of any object referenced by the at-issue domain names. The multiple
registrations incorporating Complainant’s trademark shows a pattern proscribed
by Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
See YAHOO! INC v. Syrynx, Inc.,
D2000-1675 (WIPO Jan. 30, 2001) (finding a bad faith pattern pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(b)(ii) in the respondent's registration of two domain names incorporating
the complainant's YAHOO! mark); see also
EPA European Pressphoto Agency B.V. v. Wilson, D2004-1012 (WIPO
Feb. 9, 2005) (finding that the
respondent’s registration of the <epa-photo.com>,
<epaphoto.com> and <epaphotos.com> domain names was sufficient to
constitute a pattern pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).
Respondent fails to convincingly explain or controvert the evidence offered by Complainant regarding Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain names. Therefore and for the reasons stated above, Respondent has registered and used the at-issue domain names in bad faith.
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 <bbandtfinancial.com>, <bbandtfinancialservices.com>,
<bbandtmortgageloan.com>, <bbandtmortgageloans.com>, <bbandtautoloan.com>, <bbandtautoloans.com>, <bbandtcd.com>, <bbandtcds.com>, <bbandtstocks.com>, <1800bbandtbank.com>, <1800bankbbt.com> and <1800bbtbank.com> domain
names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: May 14, 2008
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum