national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Southern Community Bank and Trust v. Peter Bishop

Claim Number: FA0810001231455

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Southern Community Bank and Trust (“Complainant”), represented by Rebecca E. Crandall, of Williams Mullen, North Carolina, USA.  Respondent is Peter Bishop (“Respondent”), Panama.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <smallenoughttocare.com>, registered with Moniker Online Services, 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.

 

Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 29, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 30, 2008.

 

On October 29, 2008, Moniker Online Services, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <smallenoughttocare.com> domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Moniker Online Services, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker Online Services, 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 November 3, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 24, 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@smallenoughttocare.com by e-mail.

 

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

 

On December 3, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <smallenoughttocare.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SMALL ENOUGH TO CARE mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <smallenoughttocare.com> domain name.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <smallenoughttocare.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

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

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Southern Community Bank, incorporated as a bank in mid-November 1996.  Complainant offers banking and trust services through bank branchs in North Carolina.  Since 1996 it has used the phrase SMALL ENOUGH TO CARE in advertising and as part of its business logo.  In 2000, Complainant registered the <smallenoughtocare.com> domain name and has been using that domain name to resolve to its offical website offering banking and trust services.

 

Respondent registered the <smallenoughttocare.com> domain name on May 19, 2008.  Respondent is using the disputed domain name to list links to third-party websites, some of which link to Complainant’s competitors.

 

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

 

Complainant must first establish that it has rights to the mark included in the disputed domain name.  Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) registration of a trademark is not necessary to establish that Complainant has rights in the mark.  See McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 25:74.2 (4th ed. 2002) (The ICANN dispute resolution policy is “broad in scope” in that “the reference to a trademark or service mark ‘in which the complainant has rights’ means that ownership of a registered mark is not required–unregistered or common law trademark or service mark rights will suffice” to support a domain name complaint under the Policy); see also Great Plains Metromall, LLC v. Creach, FA 97044 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2001) (“The Policy does not require that a trademark be registered by a governmental authority for such rights to exist.”).

 

Complainant has operated continuously since 1996 using the SMALL ENOUGH TO CARE mark as part of its logo and in its advertising of banking and trust services.  In 2000, Complainant registered the <smallenoughtocare.com> domain name through which it operates its official website.  The Panel finds that Complainant has established common law rights to the SMALL ENOUGH TO CARE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its long and continuous use in connection with its business.  See Keppel TatLee Bank v. Taylor, D2001-0168 (WIPO Mar. 28, 2001) (“[O]n account of long and substantial use of [KEPPEL BANK] in connection with its banking business, it has acquired rights under the common law.”); see also Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law rights in a mark where its use was continuous and ongoing, and secondary meaning was established).

 

The <smallenoughttocare.com> domain name misspells Complainant’s SMALL ENOUGH TO CARE mark by adding the letter “t” between the second and third word.  The disputed domain name adds the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com.” The gTLD is immaterial to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.  See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar); see also 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.”).  Misspelling Complainant’s mark is insufficient to dispel the disputed domain name’s confusing similarity.  The Panel finds that the <smallenoughttocare.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SMALL ENOUGH TO CARE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. Seocho, FA 149187 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 28, 2003) (finding that the respondent's <marrriott.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant's MARRIOTT mark); see also 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).

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

The initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) is on Complainant to prove that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  Once Complainant has made a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to the directions provided in Policy ¶ 4(c).  See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it 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.  In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”).  The Panel finds that Complainant has presented a prima facie case, and the Panel now chooses to consider whether an evaluation of all the evidence demonstrates rights or legitimate interests for Respondent under Policy ¶ 4(c).

 

The Panel finds no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the <smallenoughttocare.com> domain name.  Complainant asserts that Respondent has no license or agreement with Complainant authorizing Respondent to use the SMALL ENOUGH TO CARE mark, and the WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Peter Bishop.”  Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name 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 Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’  Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”).

 

Respondent is using the <smallenoughttocare.com> domain name to link to third-party websites that offer banking and mortgage services.  Respondent is using the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SMALL ENOUGH TO CARE mark, to redirect Internet users interested in Complainant’s products to third-party websites.  These websites are both unrelated and in competition with Complainant’s business.  The Panel finds this use is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to 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 WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev, FA 156716 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to the complainant’s mark, websites where the respondent presumably receives a referral fee for each misdirected Internet user, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the Policy).

 

Further, Respondent’s registration of the <smallenoughttocare.com> domain name is typosquatting on the Complainant’s SMALL ENOUGH TO CARE mark.  The Panel finds this is evidence Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  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 that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent’s use of Complainant’s SMALL ENOUGH TO CARE mark in the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to competing banking sites suggests that Respondent registered the disputed domain name intending to disrupt Complainant’s business.  The Panel finds that this is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See S. Exposure v. S.  Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered the domain name in question to disrupt the business of the complainant, a competitor of the respondent); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert Internet users to a competitor's website. It is a reasonable inference that Respondent's purpose of registration and use was to either disrupt or create confusion for Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”).  

 

The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to third-party websites.  Because Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SMALL ENOUGH TO CARE mark, Internet users accessing Respondent’s disputed domain name may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting website.  Thus, Respondent’s use of the <smallenoughttocare.com> domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see also AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes).

 

Additionally, the Panel finds Respondent’s typosquatting evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to 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 that 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 <smallenoughttocare.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist

Dated:  December 17, 2008

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum