Wells Fargo & Company v. Domain Vault / Domain Vault LLC
Claim Number: FA1801001765145
Complainant is Wells Fargo & Company (“Complainant”), represented by Felicia J. Boyd of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Domain Vault / Domain Vault LLC (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <wellslfargo.com>, registered with Name.com, Inc.
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 2, 2018; the Forum received payment on January 3, 2018.
On January 4, 2018, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <wellslfargo.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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 January 5, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 25, 2018 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@wellslfargo.com. Also on January 5, 2018, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 30, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 is a diversified financial services company that serves more than 27 million customers. Complainant has used WELLS FARGO and related marks for financial services and related goods and services since 1852. Complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark is registered in the United States and many other countries, and Complainant asserts that the mark has been famous for many years.
Respondent is the registrant of the disputed domain name <wellslfargo.com>. The domain name was originally registered in 2005, and was held in the name of a privacy registration service immediately prior to the commencement of this proceeding. Complainant states that Respondent has no trademark or intellectual
property rights in the disputed domain name; is not and never has been a licensee of Complainant; and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant states further that the disputed domain name directs Internet users to websites that are nearly identical to Complainant's site, that attempt to fraudulently obtain personal information from users through a "phishing" scam, and that contain harmful computer viruses and attempt to install them on users' computers.
On these grounds Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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.”).
The disputed domain name <wellslfargo.com> corresponds to Complainant's registered mark WELLS FARGO, omitting the space and adding an extraneous letter "L' and the ".com" generic top-level domain. None of these alterations substantially diminishes the similarity of the domain name to Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Wells Fargo & Co. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1708135 (Forum Jan. 25, 2017) (finding <w3llsfargo.com> confusingly similar to WELLS FARGO); Wells Fargo & Co. v. Domains By Proxy - VSC Proxy Account / Virtual Services Corp., FA 1592280 (Forum Jan. 2, 2015) (finding <wellsfargo9.com> confusingly similar to WELLS FARGO); Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corporate Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (finding <welsfargo.com> confusingly similar to WELLS FARGO). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name corresponds to Complainant's mark, but for a typographical error, and the only apparent uses of the domain name have been in connection with phishing schemes and other fraudulent activities, none of which would give rise to rights or legitimate interests. See, e.g., Wells Fargo & Co. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, supra (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests where disputed domain name corresponding to typographical variation of trademark was used to redirect Internet users to websites hosting malware and other third party websites); Wells Fargo & Co. v. Reino Sammeta / wellsfargo-up, FA 1627629 (Forum Aug. 14, 2015) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests where disputed domain name incorporating trademark was used for website imitating the appearance of complainant's site in attempt to obtain Internet users' personal information).
Respondent has not come forward with any evidence of rights or legitimate interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site 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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered and is using a domain name that is nearly identical to Complainant's trademark in a transparent instance of typosquatting, using the domain name to redirect Internet users to websites that are nearly identical to Complainant's site, that attempt to fraudulently obtain personal information from users, and that contain and attempt to install harmful computer viruses on users' computers. The Panel infers that Respondent was aware of Complainant and its mark at all relevant times, and that it intentionally selected and used a domain name corresponding to the mark in order to create confusion and disrupt Complainant's business. See, e.g., Wells Fargo & Co. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Wells Fargo & Co. v. Reino Sammeta / wellsfargo-up, supra (same).
Respondent's use of a privacy registration service in an attempt to conceal its identity, though not itself dispositive, is a further indication of bad faith. See, e.g., United Nations Federal Credit Union v. Haimin Xu, FA 1764638 (Forum Jan. 29, 2018). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wellslfargo.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: February 5, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page