Bank of America Corporation v. SANTOSH GHIMIRE / DO SURF IN P. LTD.
Claim Number: FA1504001615622
Complainant is Bank of America Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Tiffani D. Otey of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice PLLC, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is SANTOSH GHIMIRE / DO SURF IN P. LTD. (“Respondent”), Nepal.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bankofamerica-login.com>, registered with ENOM, 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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 21, 2015; the Forum received payment on April 21, 2015.
On April 22, 2015, ENOM, INC. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bankofamerica-login.com> domain name is registered with ENOM, INC. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. ENOM, INC. has verified that Respondent is bound by the ENOM, 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 April 23, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 13, 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@bankofamerica-login.com. Also on April 23, 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 May 18, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <bankofamerica-login.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <bankofamerica-login.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <bankofamerica-login.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds numerous registrations for its BANK OF AMERICA mark, including a registration with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), showing use dating back to 1928.
Respondent registered the <bankofamerica-login.com> domain name on July 2, 2013, and uses it to promote financial services in competition with Complainant’s services.
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 has rights in the BANK OF AMERICA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its numerous trademark registrations with the USPTO. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO).
Respondent’s <bankofamerica-login.com> domain name simply adds the generic term “login,” a hyphen and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Prior panels have found that the addition of a descriptive term does not distinguish the disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark. See Am. Eagle Outfitters, Inc. v. Admin, FA 473826 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 22, 2005) (finding the <americaneaglestores.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS mark); see also Chanel, Inc. v. Cologne Zone, D2000-1809 (WIPO Feb. 22, 2001) (“CHANEL, the salient feature of the Domain Names, is identical to a mark in which Complainant has shown prior rights. The addition of the generic term, “perfumes” is not a distinguishing feature, and in this case seems to increase the likelihood of confusion because it is an apt term for Complainant’s business.”). Previous panels have also found that the addition of a hyphen and a gTLD is irrelevant to the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). Thus, the Panel finds that the <bankofamerica-login.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA mark according.
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 alleges that Respondent is not commonly known by the <bankofamerica-login.com> domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA mark. The Panel notes that “SANTOSH GHIMIRE / DO SURF IN P. LTD.” is listed as the registrant of record for the disputed domain name. In the absence of evidence to indicate otherwise, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name.)
Complainant also argues that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a website promoting services that compete with Complainant’s services, and no doubt collects click-through fees at the website. The Panel agrees and finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a website that offered services that competed with those offered by the complainant under its marks).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent uses the <bankofamerica-login.com> domain name to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s services to its website, presumably for pay-per-click fees. The Panel finds that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 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.’”).
Complainant argues that Respondent had constructive knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the BANK OF AMERICA mark based on its many registrations of the mark. The Panel agrees that Respondent’s registration of a confusingly similar domain name in the face of numerous long-standing registrations is a further indication of Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Landry’s Rests. v. Landrys Rests. Inc., FA 506524 (NAF Aug. 11, 2005) (“Registration of confusingly similar domain names despite constructive knowledge or actual knowledge is bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Pfizer Inc. v. United Pharmacy Ltd., D2001-0446 (WIPO June 8, 2001) (actual or constructive knowledge of the complainant’s rights in the trademarks is a factor supporting bad faith).
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 <bankofamerica-login.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: May 22, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page