Citigroup Inc. v. chen huanqing
Claim Number: FA1701001710535
Complainant is Citigroup Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Brian J. Winterfeldt of Mayer Brown LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is chen huanqing (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <citi.wang>, registered with Beijing Innovative Linkage Technology Ltd. dba dns.com.cn.
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.
Sebastian M W Hughes as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 3, 2017; the Forum received payment on January 3, 2017.
After numerous requests, the Registrar, Beijing Innovative Linkage Technology Ltd. dba dns.com.cn, has not confirmed to the Forum that the <citi.wang> domain name is registered with Beijing Innovative Linkage Technology Ltd. dba dns.com.cn or that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Registrar’s non-compliance has been reported to ICANN. The Forum’s standing instructions are to proceed with this dispute.
On January 10, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 30, 2017 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@citi.wang. Also on January 10, 2017, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on January 23, 2017.
On February 3, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sebastian M W Hughes 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant asserts rights obtained through registration and use in the trademark CITI (the “Trademark”), a trademark used in the U.S. since the early 1980s and in China since 2000 in connection with Complainant’s banking and financial services and products. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations in the U.S. and worldwide for the Trademark, including U.S. Reg. No. 1181467 (registered on December 8, 1981) and Chinese Reg. No. 1440544 (registered on September 7, 2000).
Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name has previously been used for a website with monetized sponsored links (the “Website”).
B. Respondent
Respondent contends that his registration of the disputed domain name is legal, and that Respondent has not used the disputed domain name to make any harm to others.
Respondent also contends that it is legal and reasonable for Respondent to use “pinyin” (phonetic romanised Chinese language text) to register the disputed domain name.
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to transfer of the 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.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trademark acquired through use and registration.
The disputed domain name is identical to the Trademark.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark and holds that the Complaint fulfills the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
There is no evidence that Complainant has authorized, licensed, or permitted Respondent to register or use the domain name or to use the Trademark. Complainant has prior rights in the Trademark which precede Respondent’s registration of the domain name by decades. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and the burden is thus on Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption.
The Panel finds that Respondent has failed to show, for the purposes of the Policy, that he has acquired any legitimate trademark rights in respect of the domain name or that the domain name has been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain name has previously been used in respect of the Website, which, without the Complainant’s authorisation, provides monetized sponsored links to third party websites.
The Panel finds Respondent’s bare assertions that its registration of the disputed domain name is legal, and that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests simply by registering the disputed domain name which may correspond to Chinese pinyin text, wholly unconvincing.
Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor is Respondent making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name.
By using the disputed domain name in the manner described above, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Website or of a product or service on the Website.
Respondent does not assert that it had no knowledge of Complainant or of its rights in the Trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.
For the foregoing reasons, including the fact the disputed domain name is identical to the Trademark, the Panel concludes that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <citi.wang> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sebastian M W Hughes, Panelist
Dated: February 14, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page