national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Wells Fargo & Company v. DOMAeN.com c/o Rickson Rodricks

Claim Number: FA0912001297719

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Wells Fargo & Company (“Complainant”), represented by Jennifer Collins, of Faegre & Benson, LLP, Colorado, USA.  Respondent is DOMAeN.com c/o Rickson Rodricks (“Respondent”), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <wellsffargo.com>, registered with Enom, 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.

 

Louis E. Condon as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 7, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 7, 2009.

 

On December 7, 2009, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <wellsffargo.com> domain name is registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, 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 December 17, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 6, 2010 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@wellsffargo.com by e-mail.

 

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

 

On January 20, 2010, 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.

 

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 <wellsffargo.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WELLSFARGO mark.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Wells Fargo & Company, operates a financial services company under its WELLS FARGO mark.  Complainant has provided evidence of multiple registrations of its WELLS FARGO mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).  Complainant first registered its mark with the USPTO on October 27, 1964 (Reg. No. 779,187).  Complainant has also registered its WELLS FARGO mark with multiple other governmental trademark authorities.

 

Respondent, DOMAeN.com c/o Rickson Rodricks, registered the <wellsffargo.com> domain name on September 14, 2002.  Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a site advertising “Money Montage,” which is unrelated to Complainant’s business.

 

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 has provided evidence of multiple registrations of its WELLS FARGO mark with the USPTO and other governmental trademark authorities.  The Panel finds each of these registrations adequately establishes Complainant’s rights in its WELLS FARGO mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. r9.net, FA 445594 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (finding the complainant’s numerous registrations for its HONEYWELL mark throughout the world sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the mark under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Morris, FA 569033 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2005) (“Complainant has established rights in the AIG mark through registration of the mark with several trademark authorities throughout the world, including the United States Patent and Trademark office (‘USPTO’)”).

 

Respondent’s <wellsffargo.com> domain name contains Complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark with the addition of an extraneous letter “f,” and the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com.”  The Panel finds neither of these alterations sufficiently distinguishes the disputed domain name from Complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark.  Thus, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Am. Online, Inc. v. David, FA 104980 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2002) (“The misspelling of a famous mark does not diminish the confusingly similar nature between the marks and the disputed domain names.”); see also Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the elimination of spaces between terms and the addition of a gTLD do not establish distinctiveness from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  The burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) after Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations.  The Panel finds Complainant has made a sufficient prima facie case.  Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may assume Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c).  See Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that once a prima facie case has been established by the complainant, the burden then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)); see also Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertions in this regard.”).

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has never been authorized to use the WELLS FARGO mark and Respondent has failed to provide evidence that it is commonly known <wellsffargo.com> domain name.  The WHOIS information lists the registrant as “DOMAeN.com c/o Rickson Rodricks.”  The Panel finds there is no evidence in the record to indicate Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.  Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by 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 Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name).

 

Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website advertising for “Money Montage,” a third-party product unrelated to Complainant.  Respondent likely receives referral fees for this use of the disputed domain name.  The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to a complainant’s mark is not a bona fide use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)); see also Barnesandnoble.com LLC v. Your One Stop Web Shop, FA 670171 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to divert Internet users attempting to reach the complainant’s website and in breach of the complainant’s affiliate program is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).

 

Finally, the Panel finds that Respondent is engaged in typosquatting because Respondent is taking advantage of a common misspelling of Complainant’s aforementioned marks to divert Internet users to a third-party product.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s typosquatting is further evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, FA 877979 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (concluding that by registering the <microssoft.com> domain name, the respondent had “engaged in typosquatting, which provides additional evidence that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also 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’”).

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a website advertising for “Money Montage,” a third-party product unrelated to Complainant.  Respondent presumably receives referral fees for this use of the disputed domain name.  Internet users interested in Complainant’s financial products and services may become confused as to Complainant’s association with and sponsorship of the disputed domain name and resolving third-party website.  Respondent is attempting to profit from this confusion.  The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); see also MySpace, Inc. v. Myspace Bot, FA 672161 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2006) (holding that the respondent registered and used the <myspacebot.com> domain name in bad faith by diverting Internet users seeking the complainant’s website to its own website for commercial gain because the respondent likely profited from this diversion scheme).

The Panel previously discussed its finding the Respondent has engaged in typosquatting.  The Panel finds typosquatting is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball League, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting … is the intentional misspelling of words with [the] intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors.  Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith.”).

 

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

 

DECISION

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

 

 

 

Louis E. Condon, Panelist

Dated:  February 3, 2010

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum