UBS AG v. Brett Pinnington / Service Global 52 LTD
Claim Number: FA1701001714270
Complainant is UBS AG (“Complainant”), represented by Patrick J. Jennings of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, Washington D.C., USA. Respondent is Brett Pinnington / Service Global 52 LTD (“Respondent”), United Kingdom.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ubsoptionlanding.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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 January 26, 2017; the Forum received payment on January 27, 2017.
On Jan 27, 2017, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <ubsoptionlanding.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 January 30, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 21, 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@ubsoptionlanding.com. Also on January 30, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 27, 2017, 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 registered the UBS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,573,828, registered December 26, 1989). See Compl., at Attached Annex 3. Respondent’s <ubsoptionlanding.com> mark is confusingly similar as it includes the entire UBS mark with the generic wording “option landing”, and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <ubsoptionlanding.com>. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the UBS mark in any way. The disputed domain name contains information, marks, and services that are similar to Complainant’s, such as the UBS mark in red, stating that their headquarters is located in Switzerland, and that they offer financial services. See Compl., at Attached Annex 4. Such use amounts to neither a bona fide offering of goods or services described in Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Respondent registered and is using the <ubsoptionlanding.com> in bad faith. Respondent, by using the disputed domain name, offering similar services, and listing similar company information, suggests a connection with Complainant, thus confusing and defrauding consumers for illegal commercial gain. Additionally, Respondent also had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s mark, registered the domain name using the mark anyways, and used it for an unlawful purpose.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Respondent registered <ubsoptionlanding.com> on January 19, 2017.
The Panel finds that Respondent has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name. A such, the Panel orders the immediate transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant.
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 (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.”).
On February 2, 2017, Respondent sent an email to the Forum which stated that “We have received your notice regarding the domain, ubsoptionlanding.com, and have taken immediate action to delete the domain.” Upon being informed by the Registrar, Godaddy, that the disputed domain name was locked pending an outcome in this proceeding, Respondent expressed its interest in seeing this transfer effectuated.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has conceded to the transfer of the disputed domain name; therefore, a further thorough analysis of the case applying the three factors of the Policy is deemed unnecessary.
Having conceded to the transfer of the disputed domain name, <ubsoptionlanding.com>, the Panel orders the immediate transfer from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: February 28, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page