national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Citigroup Inc. v. N/A a/k/a Da Fei Ji

Claim Number: FA0905001264916

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Citigroup Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Paul D. McGrady, Jr., of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Illinois, USA.  Respondent is N/A a/k/a Da Fei Ji (“Respondent”), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <citicrads.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.

 

Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 26, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 28, 2009.

 

On May 28, 2009, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicd confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <citicrads.com> domain name is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicd and that 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 June 1, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 22, 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@citicrads.com by e-mail.

 

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

 

On June 24, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (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 <citicrads.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITICARD mark.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Citigroup Inc., operates a business in the financial sector, offering banking and credit services.  In connection with that business, Complainant has registered several trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) including the CITICARD mark (Reg. No. 1,423,239 issued Dec. 30, 1986). 

 

Respondent is using the <citicrads.com> domain name to resolve to a parking website containing links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant.  Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 27, 2005.

 

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

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the CITICARD mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) via its registration of the mark with the USPTO.  See AOL LLC v. Interrante, FA 681239 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2006) (finding that where the complainant had submitted evidence of its registration with the USPTO, “such evidence establishes complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Expedia, Inc. v. Emmerson, FA 873346 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 9, 2007) (“Complainant’s trademark registrations with the USPTO adequately demonstrate its rights in the [EXPEDIA] mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).

 

The Panel finds that the only differences between Complainant’s CITICARD mark and Respondent’s <citicrads.com> domain name are the transposition of the letters “a” and “r,” the addition of the letter “s,” and the additional of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com.”  The Panel finds these differences insufficient to dispel the confusing similarity that results from using Complainant’s CITICARD mark as the basis for the disputed domain name.  Therefore, the <citicrads.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITICARD mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See 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.”); see also Delta Corporate Identity, Inc. v. SearchTerms, FA 590678 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 14, 2005) (concluding that the <dleta.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s DELTA mark); see also Keystone Publ’g., Inc. v. UtahBrides.com, D2004-0725 (WIPO Nov. 17, 2004) (finding that the <utahwedding.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s UTAHWEDDINGS.COM mark because the domain name simply lacked the letter “s”).

 

Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first establish a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <citicrads.com> domain name.  If the Panel finds that Complainant’s allegations establish such a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does indeed have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to the guidelines in Policy ¶ 4(c).  The Panel finds that Complainant’s allegations are sufficient to establish a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <citicrads.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  Since no response was submitted in this case, the Panel may presume that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  However, the Panel will still examine the record in consideration of the factors listed in Policy ¶ 4(c).  See Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). 

 

The Panel finds no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the <citicrads.com> domain name.  Complainant asserts that Respondent has no license or agreement with Complainant authorizing Respondent to use the CITICARD mark, and the WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “N/A a/k/a Da Fei Ji.”  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’s is using the <citicrads.com> domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITICARD mark, to redirect Internet users interested in Complainant’s financial services to third-party websites.  These third-party websites are 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 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).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

The Panel finds that Respondent was using the <citicrads.com> domain name to resolve to a website containing links to third-party websites that divert Internet users to Complainant’s competitors.  The Panel finds that this use is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See 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)); see also EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites).

 

The website that resolves from the <citicrads.com> domain name displays links to websites related to and in direct competition with Complainant’s business.  The Panel infers that Respondent receives either pay-per-click fees or advertising fees for these advertisements.  Since the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, Internet users are likely to become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation or sponsorship of the disputed domain name and resolving website.  Respondent is seeking to profit from this confusion by hosting advertisements on the resolving website.  The Panel finds this use is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”); see also Philip Morris Inc. v. r9.net, D2003-0004 (WIPO Feb. 28, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s registration of an infringing domain name to redirect Internet users to banner advertisements constituted bad faith use of the domain name).

 

Therefore, Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.

 

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 <citicrads.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist

Dated: July 1, 2009

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum