Capital One Financial Corp. v. Jerry Brown
Claim Number: FA1505001620193
Complainant is Capital One Financial Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by John Gary Maynard, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Jerry Brown (“Respondent”), Washington, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <capitalone401k.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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 19, 2015; the Forum received payment on May 19, 2015.
On May 19, 2015, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <capitalone401k.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 May 20, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 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@capitalone401k.com. Also on May 20, 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 July 2, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant owns the capital one mark in numerous variants through registration with 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 <capitalone401k.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the CAPITAL ONE mark. The domain name contains Complainant’s mark, adds the generic term “401k,” 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 <capitalone401k.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 parked webpage containing the statement “FOR SALE Please Contact.”
Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use of the <capitalone401k.com> domain name. Respondent uses the disputed domain to divert Internet customers seeking Complainant’s website to Respondent’s parked web page. Further, Respondent seeks to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the capital one mark through its registration of such mark with the USPTO.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in its relevant trademarks.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a parked webpage contain the statement “FOR SALE Please Contact.”
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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s registration of its capital one mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy 4(a)(i).See Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (concluding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO).
In forming the at-issue domain name Respondent adds the descriptive term “401k” to Complainant’s capital one trademark less its space and then appends the top-level domain name “.com” to the resulting string. These alterations to Complainant’s capital one trademark are insufficient to distinguish the at-issue domain name from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that the <capitalone401k.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s capital one mark. See Google Inc. v. N/A/ k gautam, FA 1524232 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2013) (finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the at-issue mark despite the misspelling of the mark by omitting letters, the addition of a generic term, and the addition of a generic top-level domain); 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.”); see also, Daedong-USA, Inc. v. O’Bryan Implement Sales, FA 210302 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 29, 2003) (“Respondent's domain name, <kioti.com>, is identical to Complainant's KIOTI mark because adding a top-level domain name is irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶4(c) circumstances Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name lists “Jerry Brown” as the domain name’s registrant and there is nothing in the record that otherwise suggests Respondent is commonly known by the <capitalone401k.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name).
Respondent’s at-issue domain name resolves to a parked webpage containing the statement “FOR SALE Please Contact.” These circumstances suggest Respondent purchased the disputed domain name with the intent to sell it to Complainant for a profit. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007) (“UDRP precedent is clear that auctioning domains does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of domains.”); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding the respondent’s conduct purporting to sell the domain name suggests it has no legitimate use).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶4(a)(ii) and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
The <capitalone401k.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below, the presence of Policy ¶4(b) specific bad faith circumstances compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
The webpage addressed by Respondent’s <capitalone401k.com> domain name indicates that the domain name is “FOR SALE” which may be suggestive of Respondent’s desire to sell the domain name for an amount in excess of its out-of-pocket costs pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(i). As indicated above, Respondent uses the confusingly similar domain to direct Internet customers seeking Complainant’s website to Respondent’s parked webpage. Respondent’s use of the domain name in such manner disrupts Complainant’s business and is suggestive of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Surface Prot. Indus., Inc. v. Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001) (finding that, given the competitive relationship between the complainant and the respondent, the respondent likely registered the contested domain name with the intent to disrupt the complainant's business and create user confusion).
Importantly, Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name indicates that Respondent seeks to intentionally attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark for commercial gain. Thereby, Respondent is clearly intent on benefiting from the goodwill attached to Complainant’s capital one trademark. Using the domain name in this manner demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the <capitalone401k.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <capitalone401k.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: July 2, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page