DECISION

 

Synovus Financial Corp. v. Elizabeth Fagin / Wells & Wadw

Claim Number: FA1601001655021

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Synovus Financial Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by Nadya Sand of Alston & Bird, LLP, Georgia, United States.  Respondent is Elizabeth Fagin / Wells & Wadw (“Respondent”), North Carolina, United States.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <bot-synovus.com> and <bot-synovus.net>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 4, 2016; the Forum received payment on January 4, 2016.

 

On January 5, 2016, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bot-synovus.com> and <bot-synovus.net>  domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  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 January 6, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 26, 2016 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@bot-synovus.com, postmaster@bot-synovus.net.  Also on January 6, 2016, 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 January 29, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

i) Complainant is a financial services company with approximately $27 billion in assets. Complainant has registered the SYNOVUS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,517,546, registered April 22, 2014), which demonstrates Complainant’s rights in its mark. The <bot-synovus.com> and <bot-synovus.net> domains are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as they wholly incorporate Complainant’s mark and merely add the generic prefix “bot,” a hyphen, and the generic top-level domains (“gTLD”) “.com” and “.net.”

 

ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. First, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names or any variant of Complainant’s mark. Second, Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s mark. Finally, Respondent is not make a bona fide offering of goods or services through the disputed domain names or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses its <bot-synovus.com> domain in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant and phish for confidential information such as account usernames and passwords. Additionally, Respondent has failed to make any active use of its <bot-synovus.net> domain.

 

iii) Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. First, Respondent commercially gains from using the <bot-synovus.com> domain to manipulate consumers into divulging sensitive personal information. Second, Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use through its attempt to phish for Internet users’ private information. Third, Respondent has failed to make any active use of the <bot-synovus.net> domain. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domains with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a response in this proceeding. The Panel notes that the disputed domain names were registered on April 29, 2015.

 

FINDINGS

 

Complainant established that it had rights in the mark contained in the disputed domain names. Each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to Complainants protected mark.

 

Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

  

Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.

 

DISCUSSION

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(f), 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.”).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant is a financial services company with approximately $27 billion in assets. Complainant has registered the SYNOVUS mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 4,517,546, registered April 22, 2014). Complainant asserts that its USPTO registration demonstrates its rights in its mark. The Panel finds that trademark registrations with the USPTO suffice to demonstrate a complainant’s rights in its mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a USPTO trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated its rights in its mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues that the <bot-synovus.com> and <bot-synovus.net> domains are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as they wholly incorporate Complainant’s mark and merely add the generic prefix “bot,” a hyphen, and the gTLD “.com” and “.net.” Previous panels have held that the addition of a generic term to a complainant’s mark does not serve to adequately distinguish a disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Previous panels have also found that the addition of a hyphen to a complainant’s mark does not negate a finding of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Sports Auth. Mich. Inc. v. Batu 5, FA 176541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 23, 2003) (“The addition of a hyphen to Complainant's mark does not create a distinct characteristic capable of overcoming a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) confusingly similar analysis.”). Finally, previous panels have found that the affixation of a gTLD is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (“The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.”). For these reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

 

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

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 names. Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names or any variant of Complainant’s mark. Further, Complainant argues that Respondent has no license or authorization to use Complainant’s mark. The Panel notes that the WHOIS information merely lists “Elizabeth Fagin / Wells & Wadw” as registrant and that Respondent has failed to provide any evidence for the Panel’s consideration. As such, the Panel finds no basis in the available record to find Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Complainant contends that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names 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 <bot-synovus.com> domain in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant and phish for confidential information such as account usernames and passwords. Additionally, Complainant argues that Respondent has failed to make any active use of its <bot-synovus.net> domain. Previous panels have agreed that a respondent’s use of a domain to pass itself off as a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Kmart of Mich., Inc. v. Cone, FA 655014 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 25, 2006) (The panel found the respondent’s attempt to pass itself of as the complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) when the respondent used the disputed domain name to present users with a website that was nearly identical to the complainant’s website). Previous panels have also held that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests where it uses a disputed domain name to phish for Internet users’ personal information. See Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Mita Irelant Ltd., FA 1314998 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2010) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s attempt to “phish” for users’ personal information is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Finally, previous panels have concluded that a respondent’s failure to make any active use of a domain is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (finding that a respondent’s non-use of a domain name that is identical to a complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Complainant argues that Respondent commercially gains from using the <bot-synovus.com> domain, a domain with a resolving website that Complainant claims is nearly identical to its own resolving website, to divert consumers and manipulate them into divulging sensitive personal information. Previous panels have determined that a respondent’s use of a domain, for commercial gain, to divert Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting). As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use through its attempt to phish for Internet users’ private information. Past panels have found evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where a respondent uses a domain in order to fraudulently acquire Internet users’ personal information. See Hess Corp. v. GR, FA 770909 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2006) (determining that the respondent demonstrated bad faith registration and use because it was attempting to acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users through a confusingly similar domain name). For this reason, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has failed to make any active use of the <bot-synovus.net> domain. Previous panels have decided that a respondent’s failure to make any active use of a disputed domain constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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). As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Finally, Complainant contends that Respondent registered the disputed domains with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark. Specifically, Complainant alleges that it is inconceivable that Respondent was unaware of Complainant’s mark at the time the domains were registered because the content of Respondent’s resolving web pages that are nearly identical to Complainant’s. Past panels have held that a respondent demonstrated bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where the respondent was well-aware of the complainant’s mark at the time the disputed domain name was registered. See Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was “well-aware” of the complainant’s YAHOO! mark at the time of registration). Accordingly, the Panel infers from the use manner of the disputed domain names by Respondent that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, thereby engaging in conduct proscribed by Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 


DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bot-synovus.com> and <bot-synovus.net> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated:  February 5, 2016

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page