Capital One Financial Corp. v. Eliot Cobb
Claim Number: FA1501001598716
Complainant is Capital One Financial Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by John Gary Maynard, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Eliot Cobb (“Respondent”), Arizona, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <capitalone-us.com>, 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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 8, 2015; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on January 8, 2015.
On January 8, 2015, GODADDY.COM, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <capitalone-us.com> domain name is registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 January 9, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 29, 2015 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@capitalone-us.com. Also on January 9, 2015, 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 February 6, 2015, 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" 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. Complainant uses CAPITAL ONE to identify its broad business of providing financial and banking services. This mark is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). See, e.g., Reg. No. 3,442,400, registered June 3, 2008.
2. The <capitalone-us.com> domain name includes the entire mark with the addition of the abbreviation “us”—meaning United States—and a hyphen and gTLD.
3. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in this domain name. First, Respondent has never been commonly known by the <capitalone-us.com> domain name. Further, the <capitalone-us.com> domain name is used to resolve to a website that seeks to convince users they have reached an official website sponsored by Complainant.
4. Respondent registered and is using the <capitalone-us.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent seeks to pass itself off as Complainant in a ploy to disrupt Complainant’s business. Further, the content of the <capitalone-us.com> domain name is similar to the content of Complainant’s websites demonstrating an intent to profit from the likelihood of Internet user confusion.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Respondent has consented to the transfer of the domain name to Complainant.
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.”).
Preliminary Issue: Consent to Transfer
The National Arbitration Forum was copied on documentation submitted from Respondent which is identified in this proceeding as “Other Correspondence.” In this document, Respondent consents to the transfer of the domain name. Respondent states as follows:
I am happy to transfer the domain name at any time.
Because Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant, the Panel will forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <capitalone-us.com> domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
The Respondent having consented to the transfer of the <capitalone-us.com> domain name, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <capitalone-us.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: February 10, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page