The Royal Bank of Scotland Group, plc, Privilege Insurance Company Limited & Direct Line Insurance plc v. Tricia Hansen
Claim Number: FA0804001177347
Complainant is The Royal Bank of Scotland Group, plc, Privilege
Insurance Company Limited & Direct Line Insurance plc (“Complainant”), represented by James
A. Thomas, of Troutman Sanders LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <privilegebank-online.com>, 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.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 10, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 11, 2008.
On April 10, 2008, Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <privilegebank-online.com> domain name is registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide and that 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 April
18, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
May 8, 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@privilegebank-online.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 15, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <privilegebank-online.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PRIVILEGE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <privilegebank-online.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <privilegebank-online.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, Privilege Insurance Co Limited & Direct Line Insurance plc, offers a wide range of financial products and services, including insurance, commercial lending, credit card services, investment and advisory services, and real estate services. Complainant has used the PRIVILEGE mark to market its products and services. Complainant registered the PRIVILEGE mark with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) on February 17, 2003 (Reg. No. 2,324,008), and with the European Union’s Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”) on March 10, 2003 (Reg. No. 250,928). Complainant also owns the registrations for the <privilege.com>, <privilege.co.uk>, and <privilegeinsurance.com> domain names.
Respondent registered the <privilegebank-online.com> domain name on November 20, 2007. Respondent previously used the disputed domain name to host a fraudulent website and acquire personal information from Complainant’s customers. The website that resolved from the disputed domain name displayed Complainant’s mark. Currently, the disputed domain name is not being actively used.
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.
Complainant has registered the PRIVILEGE mark with the
UKIPO, and the OHIM, therefore establishing rights to the mark under Policy ¶
4(a)(i). See Royal Bank of Scot. Group plc v. TRB, FA 622345 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb.
22, 2006) (“The Panel accepts Complainant’s registration of the THE ROYAL BANK
OF SCOTLAND mark with the United Kingdom Patent Office as evidence of
Complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see
also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera,
FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding that the complainant’s
federal trademark registrations for the CHEAPTICKETS and CHEAPTICKETS.COM marks
were adequate to establish its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
The <privilegebank-online.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to the PRIVILEGE mark because it
incorporates the entire mark and adds a hyphen as well as the generic terms
“bank,” a term related to Complainant’s business, and “online.” The additions of a hyphen and these generic
terms do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from
Complainant’s mark. Moreover, the
addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not sufficiently
distinguish the disputed domain name from the PRIVILEGE mark because all domain
names are required to have a top-level domain.
Thus, the Panel finds the disputed domain name confusingly similar to
Complainant’s PRIVILEGE mark pursuant to 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 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 Broadcom Corp. v. Domain Depot,
FA 96854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2001) (finding the
<broadcomonline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the
complainant’s BROADCOM mark); see also Sports Auth. Mich. Inc. v. Batu 5,
FA 176541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 23, 2003) (“The addition of a hyphen to
Complainant's mark does not create a distinct characteristic capable of
overcoming a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) confusingly similar
analysis.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has neither rights nor
legitimate interests in the <privilegebank-online.com>
domain name. Complainant must first
present a prima facie case
establishing that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name. Once
Complainant has met the burden, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it
does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See
Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l,
D2001-0376 (WIPO
Because Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint, the Panel presumes that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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). However, the Panel will examine all evidence in the record to determine if Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by
the disputed domain name and has never been authorized to use the PRIVILEGE
mark. Furthermore, the WHOIS information
does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain
name. Therefore, the Panel finds that
Respondent is not commonly known by the <privilegebank-online.com>
domain name
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Previously, Respondent used the <privilegebank-online.com> domain name as an attempt to “pass itself off” as Complainant in order to defraud Complainant’s customers. Respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that imitated Complainant’s genuine online financial services website and asked for personal and financial information of Internet users interested in Complainant’s banking services. Complainant has alleged that Respondent was using this website to “phish” for confidential financial information in an attempt to defraud Complainant’s customers. The Panel finds that Respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as Complainant and phish for customers’ private information is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See HOPE worldwide, Ltd. v. Jin, FA 320379 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2004) (finding that a domain name that “is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, redirects Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s website, and is used to acquire personal information from Complainant’s potential associates fraudulently” does not fall within the parameters of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)); 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”).
Currently, Respondent is not actively using the disputed
domain name. The Panel finds that inactive
use further evidences Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See TMP Int’l, Inc. v. Baker Enters., FA 204112 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“[T]he Panel
concludes that Respondent's [inactive use] of the domain name does not
establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also Am. Home Prods. Corp. v. Malgioglio, D2000-1602 (WIPO
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
The website that resolved from the disputed domain name
previously imitated Complainant’s website and requested that Complainant’s
customers enter private information.
Respondent has capitalized on Complainant’s well-known PRIVILEGE mark by
attracting Internet users to its website.
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is capable of creating
confusion as to Complainant’s source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of
the <privilegebank-online.com>
domain name. The Panel finds that
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is evidence of registration and
use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb.
Forum
Respondent used the <privilegebank-online.com>
domain name to engage in a phishing scam, misdirecting Internet users seeking
Complainant’s genuine website to Respondent’s website. Respondent was deceiving Complainant’s
Internet customers and manipulating them into divulging sensitive personal
information by imitating Complainant’s genuine financial website. Thus, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name
constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See
Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Iza, FA 245960
(Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2004) (finding that using a domain name that “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” is evidence of bad faith
registration and use); see also H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto.,
FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name
was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) through the
respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to
intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its fraudulent website by
using the complainant’s famous marks and likeness).
Respondent is not currently using the disputed domain name, which
is further evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) (“[I]t is possible, in certain circumstances,
for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad
faith.”); see also DCI
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 <privilegebank-online.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: May 28, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum