The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. v. James Anderson / PTCBank.net
Claim Number: FA1306001504563
Complainant is The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Mark Sommers of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., USA. Respondent is James Anderson / PTCBank.net (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <ptcbank.net>, <ptcbank.org>, <ptcbank.info>, <ptcbank.biz>, <ptcbank.mobi>, <ptcbank.ws>, <ptcbank.cc>, <ptcbank.co>, and <ptcbank.me>, registered with Godaddy.Com, LLC.
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 12, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on June 12, 2013.
On June 14, 2013, Godaddy.Com, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <ptcbank.net>, <ptcbank.org>, <ptcbank.info>, <ptcbank.biz>, <ptcbank.mobi>, <ptcbank.ws>, <ptcbank.cc>, <ptcbank.co>, and <ptcbank.me> domain names are registered with Godaddy.Com, Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Godaddy.Com, Llc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.Com, Llc 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 June 18, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 8, 2013 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@ptcbank.net, postmaster@ptcbank.org, postmaster@ptcbank.info, postmaster@ptcbank.biz, postmaster@ptcbank.mobi, postmaster@ptcbank.ws, postmaster@ptcbank.cc, postmaster@ptcbank.co, postmaster@ptcbank.me. Also on June 18, 2013, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 July 8, 2013.
On July 12, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a publicly traded bank holding company, with PNC Bank as its principal bank subsidiary. Complainant is a Fortune 200 company with approximately 56,000 employees worldwide, total assets exceeding $305 billion, approximately 2,900 branch offices in 19 states, and approximately 6,500,000 checking account customers. Complainant has used its PNC mark and variations thereof since at least as early as 1976. Complainant holds longstanding U.S. trademark registrations for many of these marks, including PNC, PNCBANK, and Complainant’s “PowerLink” logo.
The disputed domain names were registered or acquired by Respondent in 2012 and 2013. Complainant asserts that Respondent is using the domain names for a commercial website that offers a fraudulent pay-per-click advertising service under the name “PTC Bank,” using a copy of Complainant’s “PowerLink” logo and the same colors as those used in Complainant’s design mark.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. The disputed domain names incorporate a misspelling of Complainant’s PNCBANK trademark, substituting the letter T in place of the first N. Complainant further asserts that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s PNC mark, consisting of a misspelled version of that mark and the generic term “bank.”
Complainant further contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. In support thereof, Complainant asserts that Respondent’s use of the domain names in connection with a commercial website offering a fraudulent pay-per-click advertising service, using Complainant’s logo and the name “PTC Bank,” does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names, and that Respondent is trying to pass itself off as Complainant. Complainant states that Respondent is not and has not been commonly known by the domain names, and has not been authorized by Complainant to use a variation of its name and marks.
Finally, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith, under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark and disrupting Complainant’s business.
B. Respondent
Respondent has submitted e-mail correspondence apparently addressed to Complainant in lieu of a formal response. In relevant part, Respondent denies that the domain names are related to Complainant or its marks. Respondent claims to have found Complainant’s logo via a Google image search and used it without realizing that it belonged to a real company, and subsequently deleted the logo upon receiving an objection from Complainant.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are not identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
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.
Each of the disputed domain names is identical to Complainant’s PNCBANK mark, but for the substitution of a single character (T for N) and the addition of a top-level domain suffix. Complainant alleges that the domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s PNC and PNCBANK marks.
A domain name that contains a misspelled version of a trademark—a practice commonly referred to as “typosquatting”—is normally deemed to be confusingly similar to the mark for purposes of the Policy. See, e.g., Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. v NSDAQ.COM, NASDQ.COM and NASAQ.COM, D2001-1492 (WIPO Feb. 27, 2002). Nonetheless, the trademark must be easily recognizable within the domain name to support such a finding. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 1.2 (2d ed. 2011), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview/.
When a mark exists within a crowded field, a higher degree of similarity may be required for a domain name to be deemed confusingly similar to the mark. See, e.g., Mastercard Int’l Inc. v. Education, Ersin Namli, D2011-2312 (WIPO Mar. 8, 2012) (declining to decide whether <pricelessistanbul.com> is confusingly similar to PRICELESS); Google Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates, FA 1212995 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 25, 2008) (holding that <youtubes.com> is confusingly similar to YOUTUBE, even under a heightened standard); Pinnacle Intellectual Property v. World Wide Exports, D2005-1211 (WIPO Feb. 17, 2006) (holding that <canadamedicineshop.com> is not confusingly similar to THE MEDICINE SHOPPE).
In assessing whether the mark is easily recognizable within the domain name, the Panel may consider not only the existence of similar marks (i.e., whether the mark exists within a crowded field) but also whether the domain name has a meaning that is independent of and distinct from the trademark. Thus, for example, the domain name <theatre.com> would not be deemed confusingly similar to the trademark HEAT, even though the mark appears verbatim within the domain name. See WIPO Overview, supra, at § 1.2. The existence of an independent meaning for the domain name does not preclude a finding of confusing similarity, but it does warrant application of a heightened standard of similarity.
Only the trademark and the domain name itself are to be considered in the assessment of confusing similarity. The manner in which the domain name has been used—including the content of the corresponding website—is not relevant to this question. See, e.g., Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v. Chongqing Acme Tech. Corp., Ltd., D2011-0842 (WIPO Aug. 2, 2011).
The Panel is extremely reluctant to find confusing similarity between a trademark consisting of a three-letter acronym and a domain name that has only two of those letters in common with the mark, especially where the domain name is not simply an obvious misspelling of the trademark. The letters PTC in the disputed domain names here presumably refer to Respondent’s “paid-to-click” business model, but could also refer to any number of other terms or entities. Wikipedia contains a description of the “paid-to-click” business model on a page that apparently dates back to 2007, long before Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names. See Paid to Click, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paid_To_Click. Presumably there are many other things that PTC may refer to. In addition, Complainant’s mark and the PTC variation exist within an extremely crowded trademark field: there are numerous U.S. trademark registrations for PTC, as well as for PAC, PBC, PCC, PDC, PEF, and for nearly every other three-letter combination beginning with P and concluding with C. The Panel therefore considers it unlikely that the disputed domain names would be confused with Complainant’s PNC mark.
Complainant has a stronger case for confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and its PNCBANK mark. Nonetheless, PNC is the dominant component of that mark, while PTC is the dominant component of the disputed domain names, and the Panel does not consider them to be sufficiently similar. Respondent’s use of Complainant’s logo on his website does not alter this conclusion, as the content of the website has no bearing on whether the domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks.
In light of the Panel’s dispositive finding on the first element, the Panel declines to address the questions of rights or legitimate interests and registration and use in bad faith. See, e.g., Creative Curb v. Edgetec Int’l Pty. Ltd., FA 116765 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 20, 2002).
Having considered the elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <<ptcbank.net>, <ptcbank.org>, <ptcbank.info>, <ptcbank.biz>, <ptcbank.mobi>, <ptcbank.ws>, <ptcbank.cc>, <ptcbank.co>, and <ptcbank.me> domain names REMAIN WITH Respondent.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: July 19, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page