Citigroup Inc. v. zhang na
Claim Number: FA1111001414111
Complainant is Citigroup Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Paul D. McGrady of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is zhang na (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
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.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 3, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on November 4, 2011.
On November 3, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On November 4, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 25, 2011 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@citiorient.com and postmaster@citiorientsecurities.com. Also on November 4, 2011, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on November 21, 2011.
An additional submission from Complainant was received by the Forum on November 28, 2011 and was received in a timely manner according to Forum Supplemental Rule 7. The Panel has given consideration to this submission and taken it into account in reaching its decision.
On November 30, 2011 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant makes the following contentions:
1. Respondent’s <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com>, domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITI mark as they contain words describing the name of its joint venturer. The addition of those words adds to the confusing similarity that arises from using Complainant’s CITI mark in the domain names.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com>, domain names as (i) Respondent has not show that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name, (ii) the domain name resolves to a website that contains hyperlinks to third-party websites of businesses competing with Complainant , (iii) Respondent is not making a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services or a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com> domain names and (iv) Complainant has not granted Respondent any license, permission, or authorization
by which it could own or use any domain name registrations which are confusingly similar to any of Complainant’s marks.
3. Respondent registered and used the <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com>, domain names in bad faith on the grounds that (i) Respondent registered the <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com> domain names the day after the
public announcement of the joint venture between Complainant and Orient Securities. Respondent’s knowledge of the joint venture and the famous CITI Marks may be inferred from the registration using the names of Complainant and its previously-undisclosed joint venturer, (ii)
given that the disputed domain names consist of the CITI Marks and the mark of Complainant’s joint venturer, Respondent likely selected the disputed domain names in order to prevent Complainant from reflecting in the domain names the CITI Marks with the mark of Complainant’s joint venturer, (iii) Respondent knew, or should have known, of the CITI Marks at all relevant times given the considerable registration and use of the CITI Marks, including in Respondent’s home jurisdiction of China,(iv)Respondent is not making a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services or a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the and (v)Respondent receives click-through revenue from the hyperlinks referred to.
B. Respondent
Respondent makes the following contentions:
1. The <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com>, domain names are not confusingly similar to the CITI mark because:
(a) The main part of the domain names is different from the trademark of the Complainant. Although the letters of the trademark are contained in the domain names, the expressions “orient” and “orientsecurities” are more outstanding than “citi”, because they are more easily recognized;
(b) Complainant has not registered as trademarks the expressions “citiorient”, “citi orient”, “citiorientsecurities” or “citi orient securities”.
(c) The expression “citi” is also the Chinese phonetic alphabet version of the general Chinese word “citi”, meaning magnet. According to the corresponding Chinese meaning, “citi orient” can also be understood as the combination of commonly used Chinese words “citi”, “Orient” and “securities”.
(d) Respondent registered the disputed domain names on June 1, 2011. Prior to that time, the complainant did not use the words “citi orient” or “citi orient securities” in any commercial activities or businesses. In the Complaint, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the domain names on June 3, 2011, which was later than the date on which of the Complainant released news of Complainant’s merger on its official website, namely June 2, 2011. That is not so, as the domain names were registered on June 1, 2011and Complainant released the news of the joint venture on June 2, 2011.
2. Respondent has rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names as according to ICANN regulations and the principle of “first come, first served”, Respondent registered and utilized the domain names in accordance with the law.
3. (a) Respondent did not register and use then disputed domain names in bad faith, as it registered them and reasonably used them in good faith. The date Respondent registered the disputed domain names was earlier than the date Complainant released news on the official website of the merger, so the registration was not in bad faith. Before this, Respondent did not know and would not be likely to know the news content that the complainant intended to release on its website. Moreover, Complainant does not have any evidence to prove that Respondent already knew of the news release before registering the domain names.
(b) The domain parking service undertaken does not constitute bad faith use as Respondent cannot choose or control the content of parking advertisements. Even if the result constitutes bad faith, that is not bad faith use.
(c) Complainant has not provided any evidentiary materials that Respondent intended to sell the domain names to Complainant or its competitors.
(d) Complainant has not provided any other evidentiary materials to prove that Respondent used the domain names used in bad faith.
C. Complainant submitted in its Additional Submission that the timing of the announcement of the proposed joint venture and the registration of the disputed domain names shows that the proximity in time of those events raises the inference that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith.
1. Complainant is the world-renowned financial services company that operates worldwide and has extensive interests and activities in the finance sector. It operates widely in about 100 countries and makes extensive use of the CITI mark in its activites.
2. Complainant is the registered proprietor of a trademark for CITI registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 1,181,467 registered December 8, 1981) and a trademark for CITI registered with the Chinese State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) (Reg. No. 2,021,063 registered March 14, 2004.
3. In the earlier half of 2011 Complainant negotiated a joint venture with Orient Securities and announced the joint venture on June 2, 2011.
4. Respondent registered the <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com> domain names on 3 June 2011.
5. At the time Respondent registered the disputed domain names it had knowledge of the proposed joint venture between Complainant and Orient Securities and registered the domain names because it believed that the joint venture had been concluded or that it was imminent.
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."
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.
Complainant presents several trademark registrations that it owns for the CITI mark. One such mark is with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1,181,467 registered December 8, 1981), and the other is with the SAIC (Reg. No. 2,021,063 registered March 14, 2004). Previous panels have determined that the ownership of multiple trademark registrations with national trademark authorities is sufficient for a complainant to establish Policy ¶ 4(a) (i) rights in its asserted mark. See Digi-Key Corp. v. Bei jing ju zhong cheng dian zi ji shu you xian gong si, FA 1213758 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2008) (“The Panel finds these registrations [with the USPTO and the SAIC] sufficiently establish Complainant’s rights in its DIGI-KEY mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world). The Panel accepts the evidence of the two trademarks and finds that Complainant has proven within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) that it has rights in the CITI mark.
Complainant also contends that the <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com> domain names are confusingly similar to the CITI mark. Complainant notes that the domain names contain its mark entirely, while adding the term “orient” and the term “orientsecurities” respectively, being clear references to the name of its joint venturer, and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Previous panels have found that where a domain name contains a complainant’s mark entirely while adding a generic term or terms and the required gTLD, such domain names are confusingly similar to the respective complainant’s trademarks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Anytime Online Traffic Sch., FA 146930 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 11, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s domain names, which incorporated the complainant’s entire mark and merely added the descriptive terms “traffic school,” “defensive driving,” and “driver improvement” did not add any distinctive features capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity); see also Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also 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.”). The domain names therefore consist of Complainant’s mark and references to the company with which Complainant had entered into a joint venture. The Panel finds accordingly that Respondent’s <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITI mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent contends that the <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com> domain names are comprised of common and generic terms and as such cannot be found to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. However, the Panel finds that such a determination is not necessary under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as this portion of the Policy considers only whether Complainant has rights in the mark and whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See Precious Puppies of Florida, Inc. v. kc, FA 1028247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 10, 2007) (examining Respondent’s generic terms arguments only under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and not under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Vitello v. Castello, FA 159460 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s disputed domain name was identical to complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) but later determining the issue of whether the disputed domain name was comprised of generic terms under Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(ii) and 4(a)(iii)).
Respondent also contends that the main part of the domain names is different from Complainant’s trademark. However, even if that were true, each of the domain names starts with the word “citi” which is Complainant’s trademark and the objective bystander would naturally conclude that the domain names are therefore related to Complainant or were official domain names of Complainant, which they are not.
Respondent also contends that Complainant has not registered as trademarks the expressions “disorient”, “city orient”, “citiorientsecurities” or “citi orient securities”. That submission will not avail Respondent as the sole test under the Policy is whether, on a comparison between the two, a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark and there is no obligation on a complainant to prove that it has registered other trademarks than those it relies on.
Respondent also contends that the expression “citi” is also the Chinese phonetic alphabet version of the general Chinese word “citi” , meaning magnet and that, according to the corresponding Chinese meaning, “citi orient” can also be understood as the combination of commonly used Chinese words “citi”, “Orient” and “securities”. This argument also will not avail Respondent as the sole test is to make the comparison between the domain names at issue and the trademark relied on. Applying that test, the Panel has concluded that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark.
Respondent also contends that it registered the disputed domain names on June 1, 2011, not on June 3, 2011 as alleged by Complainant and that the news of Complainant’s joint venture was announced on June 2, 2011, i.e. after the registration of the domain names. That issue is not relevant to the present issue but the Panel takes this opportunity of noting that it does not accept that Respondent registered the disputed domain names before the announcement of the joint venture and in ignorance of it. The Panel will deal further with that issue later in this decision.
For these reasons Complainant has made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See 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 UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by either of the disputed domain names in this dispute. Complainant points the Panel to the WHOIS information, which identities “Zhang Na” as the registrant, a fact which Complainant asserts to prove that Respondent is not known by the domain names. ) Further, Complainant alleges that it has not granted Respondent any license or permission to use its mark in any way. Previous panels have determined that where a complainant has not licensed or authorized a respondent to use its mark, and where the WHOIS information does not indicate a relationship between the registrant and the domain name, the respective respondent is not commonly known by the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c) (ii). See 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); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant also alleges that the <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com> domain names resolve to websites that are merely parked pages that provide many third-party hyperlinks to various competing financial services businesses, as well as a link to Complainant’s website. The Panel notes that such links are embedded under headings such as “Citi Credit Cards,” “No Annual Fee Credit Card,” and “Debt Management,” all fields in which Complainant is involved. Previous panels have found that such use of confusingly similar domain names does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. Albloushi, FA 888651 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 26, 2007) (rejecting the respondent’s contention of rights and legitimate interests in the <bravoclub.com> domain name because the respondent was merely using the domain name to operate a website containing links to various competing commercial websites, which the panel did not find to be a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Skyhawke Techns., LLC v. Tidewinds Group, Inc., FA 949608 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2007) (“Respondent is using the <skycaddy.com> domain name to display a list of hyperlinks, some of which advertise Complainant and its competitors’ products. The Panel therefore finds that this use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). The Panel finds accordingly that Respondent has not demonstrated a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Complainant also maintains that Respondent is attempting to sell the disputed domain names to the general public. Complainant notes that there is a statement and link on the resolving websites which states, “[t]he domain [name] may be for sale by its owner!” As this is a general sale offer, such an offer to sell the domain names is indicative of Respondent’s lack of rights in the domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding the respondent’s conduct purporting to sell the domain name suggests it has no legitimate use); see also Skipton Bldg. Soc’y v. Colman, D2000-1217 (WIPO Dec. 1, 2000) (finding no rights in a domain name where the respondent offered the infringing domain name for sale and the evidence suggests that anyone approaching this domain name through the worldwide web would be "misleadingly" diverted to other sites).
For these reasons, the Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case and the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut the prima facie case. The question then arises whether Respondent has rebutted the prima facie case against it. The Panel finds that it has not done so and for the following reasons. Respondent’s case on this element is that according to ICANN regulations and the principle of “first come, first served”, Respondent registered and utilized the domain names in accordance with the law. However, ICANN’s rules include the Policy and the Policy does not give Respondent a right to the domain names merely because it registered them before Complainant could do so. Moreover, there is no “first come, first served” principle if a domain name is registered improperly or contrary to the Policy. Essentially, Respondent’s case on the whole proceeding is that it registered the domain names not knowing of the joint venture with Orient Securities and in any event before Complainant issued its press release announcing the conclusion of the negotiations for the joint venture. There is some dispute as to the precise date when Respondent registered the domain names and Complainant has suggested in its Additional Submission that time differences between Asia and the United States may explain any discrepancy if there is one. This may be the explanation, but in the opinion of the Panel, it does not matter. That is so because the Panel does not accept that it is credible that Respondent did not know of the proposed joint venture. The Panel finds that Respondent knew either that the joint venture was possible, imminent or already concluded and that it registered the domain names for that reason and to capitalize on the event. On the balance of probabilities, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the domain names with the intention of benefiting itself at the expense of Complainant by forcing Complainant to buy them or with the intention of selling them to another party who in turn would force Complainant to buy them or with the intention of using the domain names to mislead users of the Internet as to the association between the domain names and Complainant. Nor is this solely an attempt to extort money from Complainant, for when domain names including the names of banks are at issue there is at least a possibility that innocent victims will give their personal details to unauthorized people who will use them for criminal and fraudulent activities. Accordingly, the Panel rejects the evidence of Respondent as it is incapable of being accepted as credible evidence. It is also rejected in view of the absence of any explanation or suggestion from Respondent as to why, of all the names available to it for its domain names, it chose the popular name and trademark of Complainant and its joint venturer and at the strategically significant time of the negotiations for the joint venture and their conclusion.
Respondent has thus failed to rebut the prima facie case against it and Complainant has thus established the second of the three elements it must prove.
Complainant claims that Respondent may be attempting to sell the disputed domain names. Complainant points to the top of the resolving websites that contain a line stating, “[t]he domain [name] may be for sale by its owner!” Further, Complainant also notes that the WHOIS information also contains a link stating that the domain names may be for sale. Such a link or statement is a general offer to sell the domain names and the Panel therefore finds that such evidence indicates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding that the attempted sale of a domain name is evidence of bad faith); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's general offer of the disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”).
Complainant also submits that the domain names contain not only its mark, but the name of “Orient Securities,” the company with which Complainant announced a joint venture just before Respondent registered the domain names in question. Complainant argues that Respondent is using the domain names to prevent Complainant from reflecting its mark and the mark of its joint venture partner in bad faith. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s registration of the <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com> domain names prevents Complainant from reflecting its mark in a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tel. Island, D2004-0711 (WIPO Nov. 15, 2004) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent registered the <toshibastrata.com> domain name to prevent the complainant from reflecting the TOSHIBA and STRATA marks in a corresponding domain name); see also Albertson's, Inc. v. Bennett, FA 117013 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2002) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) in the respondent’s registration of the <albertsonscoupons.com> and <albertsons-coupons.com> domain names because the respondent “registered the domain names in order to prevent Complainant from registering its common law ALBERTSON’S COUPON mark in a corresponding domain name”).
Further, Complainant submits that Respondent is using the domain names to produce websites featuring third-party links to competing businesses in the financial services market. Prior panels have found that such links create a disruption to a complainant’s business and are evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names); see also Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). The Panel therefore finds Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) bad faith has been made out.
Complainant also submits that Respondent registered the domain names at issue with the intent of commercial gain. Complainant alleges that Respondent “demonstrates his bad faith through providing pay-per-click, advertising competing credit card services at the Offending Domains, thereby attracting Internet traffic to the Offending Domains for commercial gain by using Complainant’s CITI Marks.” The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent has registered and used the domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes); see also Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”). Accordingly, the Panel finds in all the circumstances of this case that Respondent is liable for the content displayed on its websites resolving from the domain names.
Lastly, Complainant contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain names opportunistically and in bad faith. Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the domain names the day after Complainant announced a new joint venture with Orient Securities. The Panel agrees with Complainant and finds, as also discussed in the previous section of this decision and for the reasons given there, that Respondent opportunistically registered the domain names, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Sota v. Waldron, D2001-0351 (WIPO June 18, 2001) (finding that the respondent’s registration of the <seveballesterostrophy.com> domain name at the time of the announcement of the Save Balusters Trophy golf tournament “strongly indicates an opportunistic registration”); see also 3M Co. v. Jung, FA 505494 (Nat. Arab. Forum Aug. 11, 2005) (“Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name the same day that Complainant issued the press release regarding the acquisition constitutes opportunistic bad faith.”).
Complainant has thus established the third of the three elements that it is required to prove.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <citiorient.com> and <citiorientsecurities.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC, Panelist
Dated: December 1, 2011.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page