Altria Group, Inc. v. Denise F. Keane
Claim Number: FA1603001664221
Complainant is Altria Group, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Joel D. Leviton of Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Denise F. Keane ("Respondent"), Virginia, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <altriagroupinc.co> (the 'Domain Name'), 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.
Dawn Osborne of Palmer Biggs Legal as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 7, 2016; the Forum received payment on March 7, 2016.
On March 7, 2016, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <altriagroupinc.co> 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 March 9, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 29, 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@altriagroupinc.co. Also on March 9, 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 April 1, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne of Palmer Biggs Legal 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's submissions can be summarised as follows:
The Complainant is the parent company of four major tobacco companies and has continually used its ALTRIA trade mark in interstate commerce for numerous years in this capacity. It owns the altria.com domain name and operates a web site with information about its group of companies at that domain name. It offers a number of services under its mark including charitable services such as scholarships, financial services, information services about underage tobacco prevention, tobacco cessation support services, tobacco production, distribution and sales services and consumer engagement and related services in the field of tobacco products under its mark. It owns US trade mark registrations for ALTRIA in connection with charitable, financial and philanthropic services.
The Domain Name incorporates Complainant's well known ALTRIA mark and is solely comprised of Complainant's full corporate name Altria Group Inc. and the generic top level domain .co which does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark. The Domain Name was chosen because it refers directly to the Complainant.
Respondent created two fraudulent accounts on the web site for the Virginia Employment Commission.
Respondent registered the Domain Name to defraud the pubic by passing itself off as the Complainant. It has engaged in a phishing scheme whereby it has sent e mails from the address infocenter@altriagroupinc.co to prospective employees who had posted resumes to the Virginia Employment Commission site. Purportedly sent from Denise F Keane who is Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Altria Group, the e mail informs of supposedly available positions at the Complainant and invites recipients to partake in an interview process by setting up instant messenger accounts and then engage in a lengthy conversation where candidates are asked for personal information under the pretext of offering employment. This is not a bona fide offering of goods and services nor is it a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
Respondent is not commonly known as Altria Group Inc. The whois record falsely identifies the Respondent as Denise F Keane the same name as Complainant's General Counsel.
The Domain Name does not resolve to an active web site.
The Respondent has no legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
Beyond Respondent's obvious knowledge of the Complainant, the Respondent is using an email infocenter@altriagroupinc.co to impersonate the Complainant as it appears to be an e mail address emanating from the Complainant. Using the Domain Name for impersonation to obtain personal information is bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name.
Respondent has also submitted a false name and address when registering the Domain Name using the name of the Complainant's General Counsel and the Complainant's address. Use of this false contact information is also evidence of bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the parent company of four major tobacco companies. It owns US trade mark registrations for ALTRIA in connection with charitable, financial and philanthropic services with first use recorded as 2003.
Respondent has engaged in a phishing scheme whereby it has sent e mails from the address infocenter@altriagroupinc.co to prospective employees who had posted resumes to website of the the Virginia Employment Commission. Purportedly sent from Denise F Keane who is Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Altria Group the e mail informs of supposedly available positions at the Complainant and invites recipients to partake in an interview process by setting up instant messenger accounts and then engaging in a lengthy conversation where candidates are asked for personal information under the pretext of offering employment.
The Domain Name does not resolve to an active web site.
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 or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of the Complainant's ALTRIA mark, the generic terms 'group' and 'inc' reflecting the Complainant's corporate name ' and the ccTLD .co.
Prior panels have found that adding a generic term does little to remove confusing similarity from a disputed mark. See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v Healy/BOSTH D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar 23, 2001)(Finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term.) In this case since the additions combine with the Complainant's ALTRIA mark to reflect the Complainant's full corporate name the confusing nature of the Domain Name is clear.
The ccTLD .co does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the ALTRIA mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Names. See Audigier Brand Mgmt. Grp., LLC v bai wentao, FA 1286108 (Nat Arb Forum Nov 16, 2009) (holding that even after the 'addition of a ccTLD the disputed domain name is still identical to the Complainant’s mark’).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4 (a) (i) of the Policy has been satisfied by the Complainant.
Respondent is using the Domain Name to deceive Internet users seeking employment with the Complainant for pecuniary gain in that the Respondent seeks to obtain the personal information of those individuals, conduct known as 'phishing'. Prior panels have found that 'phishing' is not bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy 4 (c)(i) See Blackstone TM LLC 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 non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy 4(c)(iii)).
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
The Domain Name is being used to gather information from individuals using the Complainant's mark. The Respondent is clearly passing itself off as the Complainant for this purpose using the Domain Name and the name of the Complainant's general counsel to deceive. The panel finds the use of the Domain Name is confusing and deceptive and has been used for a phishing scam. See Capital Fin Corp. & Capital One Bank v Howel FA 289304 (Nat. Arb, Forum Aug. 11, 2003) (Holding that as the capitalonebank.biz domain name was confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, it was being used to acquire personal information from Complainant's clients constituting bad faith registration and use. ) See Wells Fargo & Co. v Maniac State FA 608239 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan 19, 2006)(Finding bad faith registration and use where respondent was using the wellsbankupdate.com domain name in order to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of the Complainant's customers.)
As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paragraph 4(b)(iv) pf the Policy. As such it is unnecessary to consider the additional ground of alleged bad faith that the Respondent has provided a false name and address.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <altriagroupinc.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: April 12, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page