Capital One Financial Corp. v. Sakar Ranjitkar / www.creditcardlogins.net
Claim Number: FA1505001617706
Complainant is Capital One Financial Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by John Gary Maynard, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Sakar Ranjitkar / www.creditcardlogins.net (“Respondent”), Nepal.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <capitalone-login.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 4, 2015; the Forum received payment on May 4, 2015.
On May 5, 2015, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <capitalone-login.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 May 5, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 26, 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-login.com. Also on May 5, 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 June 1, 2015 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson, 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
Complainant uses the CAPITAL ONE mark to identify its major financial institution that offers a broad spectrum of financial products and services to consumers, small businesses and commercial clients. Complainant registered the CAPITAL ONE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,989,909, registered July 5, 2011), which demonstrates its rights in the mark. The <capitalone-login.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the CAPITAL ONE mark as the domain name incorporates the mark entirely, in addition to a hyphen and the generic term “login”, along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <capitalone-login.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to register any variant of CAPITAL ONE in a domain name. Further, Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services through the disputed domain name, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactively held page displaying the message “Forbidden”, indicating a “404 Not Found error.”
Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent has inactively held the <capitalone-login.com> domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant is Capital One Financial Corp. of Richmond, VA, USA. Complainant owns numerous domestic and international registrations for the mark capital one and related marks which it has used continuously since at least as early as 1996 in connection with its provision of financial products and services.
Respondent is Sakar Ranjitkar / www.creditcardlogins.net, of Kathmandu, Nepal. Respondent’s registrar’s address is listed as Mumbai, India. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name was registered on or about September 28, 2014.
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 uses the CAPITAL ONE mark to identify its major financial institution that offers a broad spectrum of financial products and services to consumers, small businesses and commercial clients. Complainant registered CAPITAL ONE with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,989,909, registered July 5, 2011), and asserts the registration demonstrates rights in the mark. The Panel finds the USPTO registration is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Towmaster, Inc. v. Hale, FA 973506 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 4, 2007) (finding that “Complainant’s timely registration with the USPTO and subsequent use of the BIG TOW mark establishes rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Complainant argues that the <capitalone-login.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the CAPITAL ONE mark as the domain name incorporates the mark entirely, in addition to a hyphen and the generic term “login”, along with the “.com” gTLD. Prior panels have found such augmentations to a mark inadequate in thwarting a finding of confusing similarity per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Teradyne, Inc. v. 4Tel Tech., D2000-0026 (WIPO May 9, 2000) (finding that the “addition of a hyphen to the registered mark is an insubstantial change. Both the mark and the domain name would be pronounced in the identical fashion, by eliminating the hyphen"); see also Whitney Nat’l Bank v. Easynet Ltd, FA 944330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (“The additions of generic words with an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business and a gTLD renders the disputed domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel here finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CAPITAL ONE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Complainant has proven this element.
The Panel recognizes that 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), 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). The Complainant has met this burden.
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <capitalone-login.com> domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to register any variant of CAPITAL ONE in a domain name. The Panel notes that the relevant WHOIS information lists the registrant of record as “Sakar Ranjitkar / www.creditcardlogins.net.” In light of Respondent’s failure to respond in these proceedings and provide any evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds no basis to hold that Respondent is commonly known by the <capitalone-login.com> domain name via 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 alleges Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services through the disputed domain name, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactively held page displaying the message “Forbidden”, indicating a “404 Not Found error.” Previous panels have found no rights or legitimate interests in a respondent’s inactively held domain name. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (“The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). The Panel here finds that Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the <capitalone-login.com> domain name evinces neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).
Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
As the Respondent has not provided a response to this action the Respondent has failed to meet its burden regarding proof of any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain.
The Complainant has proven this element.
While Complainant does not make any contentions that fall within the articulated provisions of Policy ¶ 4(b), the Panel notes that those provisions are meant to be merely illustrative of bad faith, and that Respondent’s bad faith may be demonstrated by ancillary allegations considered under the totality of the circumstances. See Digi Int’l Inc. v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth certain circumstances, without limitation, that shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith). Complainant argues that Respondent has inactively held the <capitalone-login.com> domain name. Past panels have found bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where a respondent has inactively held a disputed domain name. See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s [failure to make an active use] of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy). The Panel here finds that Respondent’s inactive holding of the <capitalone-login.com> domain name constitutes bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Complainant has proven this element.
Because the Complainant has established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s requested relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <capitalone-login.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: June 15, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page