Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Marchand Financial Services Inc
Claim Number: FA0903001252290
Complainant is Webster Financial Corporation and Webster
Bank, National Association (“Complainant”), represented by Diane Duhaime, of Jorden Burt LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <websteradvisor.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
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.
Louis E. Condon as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 12, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 13, 2009.
On March 13, 2009, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <websteradvisor.com> domain name is registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. and that 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 March 24, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 13, 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@websteradvisor.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 20, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Louis E. Condon 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 <websteradvisor.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WEBSTER FINANCIAL ADVISORS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <websteradvisor.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <websteradvisor.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association, is a leading bank and financial institution that provides financial services. Complainant owns a number of trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the WEBSTER family of marks. In particular, Complainant owns a trademark registration for the WEBSTER FINANCIAL ADVISORS mark (Reg. No. 2,581,017 issued June 8, 2005).
Respondent registered the <websteradvisor.com> domain name on April 7, 2008. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website offering financial services in direct competition with Complainant.
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.
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in
the WEBSTER FINANCIAL ADVISORS mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registration with the USPTO. See
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a
trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <websteradvisor.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WEBSTER FINANCIAL ADVISORS mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent’s disputed domain name contains the dominant portion of Complainant’s mark, omits the term “financial,” omits an “s,” and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that a disputed domain name that contains the dominant portion of a complainant’s mark and omits one term creates a confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the complainant’s mark. See Am. Eagle Outfitters, Inc. v. Admin, FA 473826 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 22, 2005) (finding the <americaneaglestores.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS mark); see also Maple Leaf Sports & Entm’t Ltd. v. Toronto Maple Leafs!, D2000-1510 (Jan. 24, 2001) (finding that the domain name <leafs.org> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks, where the complainant holds many trademarks that contain the term “LEAFS”). In addition, the Panel finds that the omission of an “s” and the addition of a gTLD are insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a registered mark. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. HarperStephens, D2000-0716 (WIPO Sept. 5, 2000) (finding that deleting the letter “s” from the complainant’s UNIVERSAL STUDIOS STORE mark did not change the overall impression of the mark and thus made the disputed domain name confusingly similar to it); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the mere addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
has been satisfied.
Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the <websteradvisor.com> domain name. When Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden is shifted to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds that in this case, Complainant has established a prima facie case. 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 Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).
Complainant asserts that Respondent is neither commonly
known by the disputed domain name, nor licensed to register domain names using
the WEBSTER FINANCIAL ADVISORS mark. Respondent’s WHOIS information
identifies Respondent as “Marchand Financial Services Inc.” Therefore, the Panel finds that without
affirmative evidence of being commonly known by the disputed domain
name, Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name pursuant to 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 IndyMac Bank F.S.B.
v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the
respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the
<emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to
register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit
evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s disputed domain name
resolves to Respondent’s commercial website offering financial products and
services in direct competition with Complainant. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the
disputed domain name is neither a bona
fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). 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.”); see also DLJ Long Term Inv. Corp. v.
BargainDomainNames.com, FA 104580 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2002) (“Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in
connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services because Respondent
is using the domain name to divert Internet users to <visual.com>, where
services that compete with Complainant are advertised.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the <websteradvisor.com> domain name to operate a website in direct competition with Complainant constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and qualifies as bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See 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); see also Puckett, Individually v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent has diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
Respondent’s use of the <websteradvisor.com> domain name in order to intentionally attract Internet users to its website by creating a strong likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s WEBSTER FINANCIAL ADVISORS mark and offering financial products and services in direct competition with Complainant is further evidence of bad faith. Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), the Panel finds this use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use. See Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration by using domain names that were identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to redirect users to a website that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also State Fair of Tex. v. Granbury.com, FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent registered the domain name <bigtex.net> to infringe on the complainant’s goodwill and attract Internet users to the respondent’s website).
The Panel finds that ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <websteradvisor.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Louis E. Condon, Panelist
Dated: May 4, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum