National Arbitration Forum

 

DECISION

 

Citadel Investment Group L.L.C. v. Aakruti Creations c/o Rashmi

Claim Number: FA0903001250356

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Citadel Investment Group L.L.C. (“Complainant”), represented by Paul D. McGrady, of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Illinois, USA.  Respondent is Aakruti Creations c/o Rashmi (“Respondent”), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <citadel-financials.com>, registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicd.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her 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 March 3, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 4, 2009.

 

On March 3, 2009, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicd confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <citadel-financials.com> domain name is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicd and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicd has verified that Respondent is bound by the Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicd 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 6, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 26, 2009 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@citadel-financials.com by e-mail.

 

A Response was received on March 9, 2009.  However because this Response was received not in hard copy, the National Arbitration Forum does not consider this Response to be in compliance with ICANN Rule 5. 

 

Complainant submitted an Additional Submission on March 12, 2009, which was found to be in compliance with the National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 7.

 

On March 17, 2009, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

 

Complainant contends as follows:

 

Citadel was founded in 1990 and has grown into one of the world's largest alternative investment institutions. Citadel employs more than one thousand professionals worldwide and has offices worldwide.

 

Respondent registered the at-issue domain name on September 10, 2008 well after Complainant began extensive marketing of its services under its marks and the registration of its marks in both the U.S. and India.

 

Complainant has not given Respondent any license, permission, or authorization by which Respondent could make any use of any of its marks. Respondent has associated the domain name with a website that offers competing financial services.

 

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to the CITADEL marks because it fully incorporates Complainant's CITADEL mark and merely adds the element "financials" which is a common generic term in Complainant's industry. The mere addition of a generic top-level domain and descriptive term or terms that have an obvious association with Complainant's business do not overcome a finding of confusing similarity under Policy 4(a)(i).

 

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the at-issue domain name. Respondent has never used any trademark or service mark similar to the at-issue domain name by which it may have come to be known, other than the infringing use noted herein. Respondent has never operated any bona fide or legitimate business under the at-issue domain name and is not making a protected non-commercial or fair use of the at-issue domain name. In fact, Respondent is using the at-issue domain name to disrupt Complainant's business and to unfairly compete with Complainant.

 

Respondent was undoubtedly aware of Complainant's marks prior to the registration of the at-issue domain name, given their considerable registration and/or use. Because Respondent had notice of the Complainant's trademark rights when registering domain names nearly identical and/or confusingly similar to those marks, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the at-issue domain name.

 

Complainant has not granted Respondent any license, permission, or authorization by which he could own or use any domain name registrations which are confusingly similar to any of Complainant's marks.

 

Respondent registered and is using the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Given the considerable registration and use of the CITADEL marks, Respondent knew or should have known of such marks at all relevant times. Accordingly, Respondent had actual knowledge that the at-issue domain name, which mimics and/or incorporates Complainant's registered marks, is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks. This knowledge is more than sufficient for a finding of bad faith registration.

 

Respondent, who registered the at-issue domain name through a U.S. based registrar, has at least constructive notice of complainant's U.S. registration rights.

 

Given the considerable registration and/or use of the CITADEL Marks, Internet users are likely to be induced to believe that the at-issue domain name connects to websites associated with or sponsored by Complainant.  Also, using a confusingly similar domain name to convert traffic to a commercial website is one of the four explicit examples of bad faith use found in the Policy.

 

B. Respondent

 

In its email correspondence with National Arbitration Forum, Respondent or its agent contends as follows:

 

Respondent was not aware of any requirements under Rule 5. Since Citadel Mall Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. is a startup company and has had no operations since its inception in August 2007, the Managing Director of the company has already been in talks with his accountants to start the proceedings for closure of the company. The same shall be completed within 2 months.

 

Regarding the Complaint, considering the above scenario, Respondent will ask its agent to close the website and domain with immediate effect. Respondent maintains that Citadel Mall Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. is a legally incorporated company in India and the authorities in India have approved the name.

 

Also, with reference to the domain, <citadel-financials.com> was setup just because of the availability and in no way was an attempt to duplicate or market services under CITADEL Investment groups brand name. Respondent opposes the remarks under the Complaint that the respondent was undoubtedly aware of complainant marks before registration.

 

Citadel Mall Financial Services Pvt. Ltd is a legally incorporated company in India and the authorities in India have approved the name.

 

Also, with reference to the domain, <citadel-financials.com> was setup just because of the availability and in no way was an attempt to duplicate or market services under CITADEL Investment groups brand name.

 

Any resemblance is merely coincidental. As a solution, Respondent is ready to change the domain name to <citadelmall-financials.com>.

 

C. Additional Submissions

 

Complainant submitted the following additional contentions in accordance with Rule 7 of the Supplemental Rules:

 

Respondent's fails to comply with certification requirements. Respondent's "Response" consists of a series of unsigned emails addressed to the NAF case manager (collectively the "Deficient Response"). The Deficient Response does not contain the certification required under UDRP Rule 5(b)(viii). Complainant requests that the Panel refuse to consider the Deficient Response. Alternatively, Complainant requests that the Panel also consider the following:

 

The Deficient Response fails to rebut Complainant's prima facie case. The record remains clear that (1) Complainant has legitimate trademark rights to <citadel-financials.com>; (2) the at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark; (3) Respondent has no legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name; and (4) the at-issue domain name was both registered in bad faith and has been used in bad faith.

 

Respondent does not deny that: 1) the Complainant has legitimate trademark rights to the Offending Domain; 2)   the accuracy of Respondent's asserted trademark registration rights in India and the United States; 3)  that Respondent had at least constructive notice of Complainant's registration rights in India and the United States; 4)  that the at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks; and 5)  that the at-issue domain name name was used to draw traffic to Respondent's website for commercial gain.

 

Respondent asserts two things that are noteworthy. First, Respondent asserts that there exists an entity in India known as "Citadel Mall Financial Services Pvt. Ltd." However, as reflected in the WHOIS record, Respondent is not known by that name. Further, Respondent provides no evidence that any such entity exists. Lastly, even if such an entity did exist and were the respondent in this matter, in order to have rights sufficient to rebut Complainant's prima facie case, that entity would have to have been formed before the priority date of the registration of Complainant' s CITADEL mark in India which is October 26,2004.

 

Respondent's own statements make it clear that no such priority exists and also makes it clear that the Respondent is not "commonly known as" the <citadel-financials.com> domain name, since a company with no operations cannot develop a reputation in its business name.

 

If Respondent's argument is accepted, all future respondents in UDRP proceedings need do to avoid a transfer order is form (or allege formation of) a corporation whose name consists, in part, of the mark of another. Acceptance of Respondent's arguments by the Panel would create a loophole, which would render the Policy irrelevant. The better rule is the one that has already been adopted by this Panel, namely that merely forming a corporate name does not, without more, convey any rights or legitimate interests in a domain name consisting of the validly registered marks of another.

 

Second, Respondent denies that it was aware of Complainant’s marks before registration. Tellingly, Respondent does not deny, nor could it, that it registered the at-issue domain name through a U.S. based registrar in Florida. Respondent does not deny that it has at least constructive notice of Complainant's rights set forth on the trademarks registry of India (where the Respondent is located) and the United States (where the registrar selected by Respondent is located).

 

Further correspondence from the Respondent or its agent contends:

 

The at-issue domain name was booked by one of Respondent’s clients, Mr. Anuj Agarwal, Director of Citadel Mall Financial Services Pvt Ltd, address as below


Citadel Mall Financial Services Pvt Ltd
K-19, Bima Nagr CHS,
Andheri(E), Mumbai - 40069
Ph: 9870456999 /  9323410114

 

The website designer confirms that his client agrees that the domain name belongs to him and also is ready to close the website so there is no dispute.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the at-issue domain name by virtue of registration of its CITIDEL mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and otherwise.

 

Respondent impliedly agrees to the transfer of the at-issue domain name to the Complainant.

 

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.”

 

Normally, 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.

 

However in certain cases, such as the instant one, a finding on each of the Paragraph 4(a)2 and 4(a)3 subparts may be dispensed with. As previously noted the Respondent makes no proper formal Response to the Complaint. The email response is defective pursuant to Rule 5.  However the Panel considers the response nevertheless. See J.W. Spear & Sons PLC v. Fun League Mgmt., FA 180628 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2003) (finding that where the respondent submitted a timely response electronically, but failed to submit a hard copy of the response on time, “[t]he Panel is of the view that given the technical nature of the breach and the need to resolve the real dispute between the parties that this submission should be allowed and given due weight”). Here the informal response indicates that the Respondent does not oppose transfer of the domain name and consents to the requested relief. While Respondent’s consent is not express, it is nonetheless implied by the Respondent’s contention that it will ask its agent to close the website and domain with immediate effect and further by the lack of any opposition to the relief requested.

 

It would have been an easy matter for the Respondent to voice clear opposition to the requested transfer, but there is no such opposition in the record. Simply asserting that the Complainant is mistaken on one or more points is not the same as opposing the requested relief. To the contrary there is no opposition to the ultimate relief requested and the comments by Respondent further indicate its consent to transferring the at-issue domain name to the Complainant. In cases where a Respondent consents to the requested relief, some panels have found that such consent obviates the need for analysis regarding the particular factors evidencing rights and interests, and bad faith.  See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004).   (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”).  Additionally, in such cases these panels have only considered whether or not the Complainant had rights in the mark claimed to be confusingly similar to the at-issue domain name.  See Citigroup Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates- NA NA FA0806001210904 (Nat Arb. Forum August 5, 2008).

 

Complainant presents adequate evidence to show that it has exclusive rights in the at issue domain name. The Complainant's trademark has been registered and is in use worldwide.  The mark is identical in sight and sound and meaning to the dominant part of the <citadel-financials.com> domain name. The addition of the term “financials” does not diminish the fact that domain name is substantially similar to Complainant’s CITADEL mark. See Chanel, Inc. v. Cologne Zone, D2000-1809 (WIPO Feb. 22, 2001) (“CHANEL, the salient feature of the Domain Names, is identical to a mark in which Complainant has shown prior rights.  The addition of the generic term, “perfumes” is not a distinguishing feature, and in this case seems to increase the likelihood of confusion because it is an apt term for Complainant’s business.”). Complainant also makes out a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks legitimate rights and interest in respect of the at-issue domain name.  

 

“When a respondent consents to transfer … it serves little purpose to expend the panel's and the parties resources in an exercise which will have no impact on the ultimate outcome of the decision process.” See majority opinion, Tokyu Corporation v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Demand Domains, Inc.D2008-1406 (WIPO December 8, 2008).  In Tokyu the Respondent’s consent to transfer was unequivocal and express, however once a Panel determines that a Respondent consents to transfer, the basis for reaching such a finding is unimportant to its effect. Therefore, after determining that Complainant has rights in the at-issue mark and that the Respondent consents to the requested relief, the Panel does not see any basis warranting further substantive analysis regarding the unessential Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(ii) and (iii) elements concerning rights and interest, and bad faith.  

 

A Panel's first and foremost function is to determine whether or not Complainant should, or should not, be granted relief.  One guiding principle of the UDRP’s abbreviated procedure is judicial economy.  Judicial economy commands that a panel should directly proceed to its decision where, as here, the Respondent's consent to relief dissolves any prior dispute.  It follows that a panel’s only purpose in rendering substantive Paragraph 4(a) findings is relegated to assist in determining its ultimate decision and that end alone. Advisory opinions are not authorized.  Therefore too, discussion of the elements of the case that are unnecessary to decide the case is superfluous.  

 

Respondent’s non-opposition and implied consent to the transfer of the at-issue domain name to Complainant in light of a policy preference for judicial economy directs the Panel to conclude that it is appropriate pursuant to Rule 10 to grant Complainant’s request.

 

 

DECISION

The Respondent having consented to and not opposed the relief requested, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <citadel-financials.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: March 31, 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum