national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

National Westminster Bank plc v. Quorium Solutions c/o Chidi Kingsley

Claim Number: FA0911001294752

 

PARTIES

 

Complainant is National Westminster Bank plc (“Complainant”), represented by James A. Thomas, of Troutman Sanders LLP, North Carolina, USA.  Respondent is Quorium Solutions c/o Chidi Kingsley (“Respondent”), Washington, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

 

The domain name at issue is <natwest-bank.org>, registered with NamesDirect.

 

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.

 

Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 16, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 17, 2009.

 

On November 16, 2009, NamesDirect confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <natwest-bank.org> domain name is registered with NamesDirect and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  NamesDirect has verified that Respondent is bound by the NamesDirect 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 23, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 14, 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@natwest-bank.org by e-mail.

 

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

 

On December 17, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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 <natwest-bank.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NATWEST mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <natwest-bank.org> domain name.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <natwest-bank.org> domain name in bad faith.

 

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

 

FINDINGS

 

Complainant, National Westminster Bank plc, holds numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the NATWEST mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,241,454 issued June 7, 1983) and the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) for the NATWEST mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,021,601 issued December 3, 1973) in connection with a full range of financial services, including personal and business banking services.

 

Respondent, Quorium Solutions c/o Chidi Kingsley, registered the <natwest-bank.org> domain name on August 18, 2009.  The disputed domain name resolves to a website that substantially imitates Complainant’s own website and is apparently being used in an effort to fraudulently acquire personal information from Complainant’s clients or potential clients.  The website prominently displays duplications of Complainant’s NATWEST mark and logo along with links to purported banking services. 

 

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 asserts rights in its NATWEST mark through its holding of trademark registrations for the NATWEST mark with both the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,241,454 issued June 7, 1983) and the UKIPO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,021,601 issued December 3, 1973).  The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the NATWEST mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registrations with the USPTO and the UKIPO.  See Morgan Stanley v. Fitz-James, FA 571918 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29, 2005) (finding from a preponderance of the evidence that the complainant had registered its mark with national trademark authorities, the Panel determined that “such registrations present a prima facie case of Complainant’s rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also AOL LLC v. AIM Profiles, FA 964479 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 20, 2007) (“Complainant has established rights in the AIM mark through its use and federal trademark registrations for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent’s <natwest-bank.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NATWEST mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NATWEST mark because Respondent’s disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of Complainant’s mark, adds a hyphen, the descriptive term “bank” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.org.”  The Panel finds that the addition of a hyphen is irrelevant for the purpose of determining confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy).  Additionally, the Panel finds that the addition of the descriptive term “bank,” a term directly related to Complainant’s business, does not diminish the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark.  See Kohler Co. v. Curley, FA 890812 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2007) (finding confusing similarity where <kohlerbaths.com>, the disputed domain name, contained the complainant’s mark in its entirety adding “the descriptive term ‘baths,’ which is an obvious allusion to complainant’s business.”); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Bogucki, FA 147305 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 16, 2003) (finding that the <wellfargobank.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the WELLS FARGO mark, because altering the mark by one letter and adding “…the word ’bank,’ a word that both describes the type of business that Complainant engages in and is included in its <wellsfargobank.com> domain name, does not alleviate any confusing similarity.”).  The Panel also finds that the addition of a gTLD to a registered mark is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name and a mark.  See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  Based on the arguments made in the Complaint, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case in support of its contentions and Respondent has failed to submit a Response to these proceedings.  See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name).  Nevertheless, the Panel will examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).

 

The WHOIS information lists the registrant as “Quorium Solutions c/o Chidi Kingsley.”  Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s mark or any variation thereof.  Without evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See 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 that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent was using the website accessed by the disputed domain name to use Complainant’s mark to fraudulently acquire personal information of Internet users who accessed the disputed domain name seeking Complainant’s services.  The Panel finds that “phishing” for personal information does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).  See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 690796 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <allianzcorp.biz> domain name to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users seeking Complainant’s financial services was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Iza, FA 245960 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2004) (finding that using a domain name to redirect “Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s billing website, and is used to fraudulently acquire personal information from Complainant’s clients,” is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).

 

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


 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent is using the confusingly similar disputed domain name in order to intentionally attract Internet users to its website to “phish” for users’ personal information by creating a strong likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s NATWEST mark.  The Panel presumes Respondent then profits by using such information for fraudulent purposes.  Thus, the Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Maniac State, FA 608239 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 19, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was using the <wellsbankupdate.com> domain name in order to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of the complainant’s customers); see also Capital One Fin. Corp. v. Howel, FA 289304 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding bad faith registration and use because the respondent used the domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that imitated the complainant’s website and to fraudulently acquire personal information from the complainant’s clients).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been 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 <natwest-bank.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist

Dated:  December 31, 2009

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum