Capital One Financial Corp. v. Richard Roybal
Claim Number: FA1503001612151
Complainant is Capital One Financial Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by John Gary Maynard, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Richard Roybal (“Respondent”), New Mexico, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bitcoincapitalone.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.
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 30, 2015; the Forum received payment on March 30, 2015.
On March 31, 2015, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bitcoincapitalone.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 April 1, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 21, 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@bitcoincapitalone.com. Also on April 1, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 27, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 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.
Complainant
Complainant owns the capital one mark in numerous versions through the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,442,400, registered June 3, 2008). Complainant offers financial products and services to consumers, small businesses, and commercial clients and uses the CAPITAL ONE mark to promote its goods and services. The <bitcoincapitalone.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the CAPITAL ONE mark. The domain name contains Complainant’s mark in full, adds the generic term “bitcoin,” and attaches the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the domain name.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, as evidenced by the WHOIS record for the <bitcoincapitalone.com> domain name. Further, Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use the CAPITAL ONE trademark, nor use the mark as a domain name. Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name is made further evident by Respondent’s failure to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website with no content, merely a statement noting, “Website Coming Soon!”
Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use of the <bitcoincapitalone.com> domain name. Respondent uses the disputed domain to resolve to a blank or inactive page, as stated above. Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel finds Complainant is entitled to the relief requested.
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.”).
Complainant contends that it owns the capital one mark in numerous versions through the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,442,400, registered June 3, 2008). Complainant states that it offers financial products and services to consumers, small businesses, and commercial clients, and uses the CAPITAL ONE mark to promote its goods and services. Past panels have found that registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes a complainant’s rights in a mark. See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s valid registration of the CAPITAL ONE mark with the USPTO sufficiently demonstrates Complainant’s rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant asserts that the <bitcoincapitalone.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the CAPITAL ONE mark. The domain name contains Complainant’s mark in full, adds the generic term “bitcoin,” and attaches the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the domain name. Past panels have found that adding a generic term does not distinguish a domain name from a mark. See Yahoo! Inc. v. Casino Yahoo, Inc., D2000-0660 (WIPO Aug. 24, 2000) (finding the domain name <casinoyahoo.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark). Further, the addition of a gTLD does not serve to adequately distinguish the disputed domain name from the registered mark. See OL Inc. v. Morgan, FA 1349260 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 4, 2010) (concluding that the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark). The Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAPITAL ONE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name 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 argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant claims that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, as evidenced by the WHOIS record for the <bitcoincapitalone.com> domain name. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists “Richard Roybal” as the registrant of record. Complainant asserts that it has never authorized Respondent to use the CAPITAL ONE trademark, nor use the mark as a domain name. The Panel agrees that, absent a response, these contentions are sufficient to establish Respondent’s lack of rights to the disputed domain name. See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name is made further evident by Respondent’s failure to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant argues that Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website with no content, merely a statement noting “Website Coming Soon!” Complainant asserts that Respondent’s failure to use the domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4 (c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the domain name). The Panel agrees that, as Respondent has failed to demonstrate a preparation to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant has proven this element.
While Complainant does not make any contentions that fall within the articulated provisions of Policy ¶ 4(b), these provisions are meant to be merely illustrative of bad faith, and Respondent’s bad faith may be demonstrated by ancillary allegations considered under the totality of the circumstances. See CBS Broad., Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone, D2000-0397 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (“[T]he Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence that a domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith”).
Complainant asserts that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use of the <bitcoincapitalone.com> domain name. Respondent uses the disputed domain to resolve to an inactive page featuring no content, and a statement noting “Website Coming Soon!” Complainant asserts failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Sech, FA 893427 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2007) (concluding that the respondent’s failure to make active use of its domain name in the three months after its registration indicated that the respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith). As Respondent has failed to make an active use of the disputed domain name over a year after its registration, the Panel finds bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the <bitcoincapitalone.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: April 28, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page