Capital One Financial Corp. v. Above.com Domain Privacy
Claim Number: FA1403001550011
Complainant is Capital One Financial Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by John Gary Maynard, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Above.com Domain Privacy (“Respondent”), Australia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <mycapitalonebank.com>, registered with ABOVE.COM PTY LTD.
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 21, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on March 21, 2014.
On March 24, 2014, ABOVE.COM PTY LTD. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <mycapitalonebank.com> domain name is registered with ABOVE.COM PTY LTD. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. ABOVE.COM PTY LTD. has verified that Respondent is bound by the ABOVE.COM PTY LTD. 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 March 25, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 14, 2014 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@mycapitalonebank.com. Also on March 25, 2014, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 18, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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. 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <mycapitalonebank.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAPITAL ONE BANK mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <mycapitalonebank.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <mycapitalonebank.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
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.
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.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant’s registration of the CAPITAL ONE BANK with the USPTO demonstrates rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (determining that the complainant’s trademark registrations with the USPTO for the CHEAPTICKETS and CHEAPTICKETS.COM marks were adequate to establish its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Respondent appears to reside in Australia; however, it is irrelevant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) whether Complainant register its mark in the country of Respondent’s residence. See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates and it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
Respondent’s <mycapitalonebank.com> domain name adds the generic term “my” to Complainant’s CAPITAL ONE BANK mark, removes the spaces in Complainant’s mark and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” These changes do not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Am. Online, Inc. v. Shanghaihangwei Packing Material Co. Ltd., D2001-0443 (WIPO May 22, 2001) (finding the <ouricq.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s ICQ mark); 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)). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <mycapitalonebank.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAPITAL ONE BANK mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), 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 asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the <mycapitalonebank.com> domain name, arguing that the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name does not reflect that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS record lists “Above.com Domain Privacy” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. Complainant states that it has never authorized Respondent to use its CAPITAL ONE BANK mark, and that Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant. In Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007), the panel concluded that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <mycapitalonebank.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent is using the <mycapitalonebank.com> domain name to display a search engine and links related to the goods and services offered by Complainant. The Panel note that Respondent’s disputed domain name links to a “searchresultsguide.com” page that includes headings such as “Capital One Bank,” “Online Banking,” and “Personal Banking.” The Panel finds that Respondent is using the <mycapitalonebank.com> domain name to provide competing hyperlinks, and thus is not using the disputed domain name for 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 United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Savchenko, FA 1105728 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 12, 2007) (“The disputed domain name, <usaa-insurance.net>, currently resolves to a website displaying Complainant’s marks and contains links to Complainant’s competitors. The Panel finds this to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is using the <mycapitalonebank.com> domain name to display a search engine and links related to the goods and services offered by Complainant. The Panel finds that this is disruptive, showing bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See H-D Michigan Inc. v. Buell, FA 1106640 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2008), where the panel determined that “The disputed domain names resolve to websites that list links to competitors of Complainant, evidence that Respondent intends to disrupt Complainant’s business, a further indication of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a webpage containing links that directly compete with the banking services provided by Complainant, no doubt for commercial gain. Past panels have concluded that a respondent’s use of a domain name to provide competing links shows bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 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)(iv) 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). The Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the <mycapitalonebank.com> domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <mycapitalonebank.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: April 25, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page