Capital One Financial Corp. v. Henry Olori / Request Media Network
Claim Number: FA1511001647370
Complainant is Capital One Financial Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by John Gary Maynard, Virginia, United States. Respondent is Henry Olori / Request Media Network (“Respondent”), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <capitalonegroupltd.com>, registered with The Registry at Info Avenue, LLC d/b/a Spirit Communications.
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.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 17, 2015; the Forum received payment on November 17, 2015.
On November 17, 2015, The Registry at Info Avenue, LLC d/b/a Spirit Communications confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <capitalonegroupltd.com> domain name is registered with The Registry at Info Avenue, LLC d/b/a Spirit Communications and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. The Registry at Info Avenue, LLC d/b/a Spirit Communications has verified that Respondent is bound by the The Registry at Info Avenue, LLC d/b/a Spirit Communications 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 November 18, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 8, 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@capitalonegroupltd.com. Also on November 18, 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 December 15, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port 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 provides banking and financial services under its CAPITAL ONE marks. Complainant has registered the CAPITAL ONE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,992,626, registered August 13, 1996), which demonstrates its rights in its mark. See Attached Exhibit A for copies of Complainant’s USPTO registrations. The <capitalonegroupltd.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic terms “group” and “ltd,” eliminates the spacing between the words of Complainant’s mark, and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. First, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or any variant of Complainant’s mark. Second, Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s mark. Finally, Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services through the disputed domain name or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses its disputed domain name to redirect Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to Respondent’s website, which provides services that are in direct competition with Complainant’s business. See Attached Exhibit C for screenshots of Respondent’s resolving webpages.
Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. First, Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in an attempt to disrupt and compete with Complainant. Second, Respondent intentionally attracts Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The disputed domain name was registered on February 18, 2015.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
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 the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered and famous trademark. The Complainant’s registration and use of the trademark CAPITAL ONE is sufficient evidence to support its rights in and to that trademark.
The Respondent merely added the generic words “group” and “ltd” and a gTLd to the trademark to arrive at the disputed domain name. This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the registered and famous trademark of the Complainant.
As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name. Respondent is apparently not commonly known by the disputed domain name and lacks any license or other agreement with the Complainant to use and registered the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information merely lists “Henry Olori / Request Media Network” as registrant. As such, the Panel finds no basis in the available record to find Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent is apparently not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Specifically, Complainant argues that Respondent uses its disputed domain name to redirect Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to Respondent’s website, which provides services that are in direct competition with Complainant’s business. See Attached Exhibit C for screenshots of Respondent’s resolving webpages. A respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to offer products and services that are in direct competition with Complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name. Complainant has established that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in an attempt to disrupt and compete with Complainant. Evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) is established, as here, when a respondent used a disputed domain name to divert a complainant’s customers to the respondent’s competing business.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant argues that Respondent intentionally attracts Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Specifically, Complainant alleges that Respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain. The Respondent’s use of a domain name to host a website that offers similar services as those offered by the complainant constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Accordingly, the Panel finds` that Respondent engaged in behavior proscribed by Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Finally, Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark. Complainant relies on the similarity between Respondent and Complainant’s websites and the confusing similarity of Respondent’s disputed domain name to make the argument that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s registered and famous trademark.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and engaged in bad faith use and registration.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <capitalonegroupltd.com> domain name transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: December 15, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page