Citadel LLC and its related entity KCG IP Holdings LLC v. Elica Efremova / Shisharka
Claim Number: FA1612001705545
Complainant is Citadel LLC and its related entity KCG IP Holdings LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Paul D. McGrady of Winston & Strawn LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Elica Efremova / Shisharka (“Respondent”), Bulgaria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <citadelcapitals.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.
Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 2, 2016; the Forum received payment on December 5, 2016.
On December 5, 2016, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <citadelcapitals.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 December 7, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 27, 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@citadelcapitals.com. Also on December 7, 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 5, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 asserts trademark rights in CITADEL and alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:
1. Citadel LLC provides investment advice and management services by reference to the trademark CITADEL;
2. KCG IP Holdings LLC, a related company, owns the intellectual property of that business including the trademark which it licenses to Citadel LLC (in this decision Citadel LLC and KCG IP Holdings LLC are referred to together as “Complainant”);
3. the trademark is the subject of United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Reg. No. 3,213,943, registered February 27, 2007;
4. the disputed domain name was created on September 14, 2016 and resolves to a website which purports to offer financial and investment-related services; and
5. there is no commercial relationship between the parties and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the trademark or to register any domain name incorporating the trademark.
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.
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights. Since Complainant provides evidence of its USPTO registration for the trademark, the Panel is satisfied that it has rights in that term.[i]
The disputed domain name takes the trademark and adds non-distinctive matter in the form of the directly descriptive word “capitals”,[ii] plus the top-level domain,“.com”, which can be ignored for the purposes of comparison.[iii] The additions do not affect the identity of the trademark which remains the recognizable element of the domain name.
Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark and so Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests.[iv]
The publicly available WHOIS information identifies “Elica Efremova / Shisharka” as the registrant and so there is no evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The evidence shows that the resolving website offers services directly competitive with those offered by Complainant under the trademark. There is no evidence that Respondent has relevant trademark rights of its own and Complainant has not permitted Respondent to use its trademark. Such use is not a bona fide offering of services.[v]
Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case and so the onus shifts to Respondent to establish a legitimate interest in the domain name. In the absence of a Response there is nothing on which a claim to rights or interests in the domain name can rest and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and that it is being used in bad faith.
Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established.
The four specified circumstances are:
‘(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.’
In this case Panel finds registration and use in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) above. The website exists for commercial gain. Panel has already found the domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark. In terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv), Panel finds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for gain, internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website.[vi]
Panel finds registration and use in bad faith and the third limb of the Policy established.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <citadelcapitals.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist
Dated: January 18, 2017
[i] See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Periasami Malain, FA 705262 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 19, 2006) (“Complainant’s registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office of the trademark, STATE FARM, establishes its rights in the STATE FARM mark pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).”); see also Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) finding that the complainant’s registration of the MADD mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office establishes the complainant’s rights in the mark for purposes of Policy paragraph 4(a)(i)).
[ii] See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (FORUM Jan. 21, 2016) finding confusing similarity where a disputed domain name contains a complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain; see also Gillette Co. v. RFK Assocs., FA 492867 (FORUM July 28, 2005) finding that the additions of the term “batteries,” which described the complainant’s products, and the generic top-level domain “.com” were insufficient to distinguish the respondent’s <duracellbatteries.com> from the complainant’s DURACELL mark; see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings LLC v. Simo Nikolov Simeonov, FA1683253 (FORUM Aug. 22, 2016) finding <citadel-capital.com> confusingly similar to the CITADEL mark for these same reasons.
[iii] See PepsiCo, Inc. v. Shah, FA 103934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 4, 2002); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000))
[iv] See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000- 0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000).
[v] See, for example, General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (FORUM Mar. 10, 2016) finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business 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).”.
[vi] See, for example, Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (FORUM Oct. 15, 2014) stating, “Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page