The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Evgenij Varnaxov / Private Person
Claim Number: FA1810001813446
Complainant is The Toronto-Dominion Bank (“Complainant”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden. Respondent is Evgenij Varnaxov / Private Person (“Respondent”), Russia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <onlinebanking-tdbank.com>, registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC.
The undersigned certifies that has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 24, 2018; the Forum received payment on October 24, 2018.
On October 26, 2018, Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <onlinebanking-tdbank.com> domain name is registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU 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 October 30, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 19, 2018 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@onlinebanking-tdbank.com. Also on October 30, 2018, 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 November 21, 2018 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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.
Preliminary Issue: Language of Proceeding
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been proffered by Complainant to show that Respondent is conversant and reasonably proficient in the English language. To wit, various headings placed on the <onlinebanking-tdbank.com> addressed website are exclusively in English and target English-speaking consumers. Furthermore, the term TD BANK, the dominant portion of the at-issue domain name, does not carry any specific meaning in the Russian language, nor does the included English term “online banking.” Respondent also replied to Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter in English. Finally, Complainant would be unjustly burdened if the proceedings were required to go forth in Russian. Therefore, after considering the record in light of the relevant rules, the Panel concludes that the instant proceeding should be in English.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, The Toronto-Dominion Bank, is the second largest bank in Canada by market capitalization and deposits, and the sixth largest bank in North America.
Complainant has rights in the TD BANK mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as well as via its registration with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”).
Respondent’s <onlinebanking-tdbank.com> is identical or confusingly similar as it contains Complainant’s TD BANK mark in its entirety, merely adding a hyphen, the descriptive terms “online” and “banking” along with the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <onlinebanking-tdbank.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not granted respondent permission or license to use the TD BANK mark for any purpose. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent fails to make an active use of the disputed domain name.
Respondent has registered and used the <onlinebanking-tdbank.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent is attempting to attract for commercial gain internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or location of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. Respondent failed to make an active use of the disputed domain name. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TD BANK mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent responded in emails with Complainant that the at-issue domain name was not being used and asking Complainant what the problem was, but did not submit a formal response.
Complainant has trademark rights in the TD BANK mark.
Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in TD BANK.
Respondent fails to make active use of the <onlinebanking-tdbank.com> 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.
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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for the TD BANK trademark, as well ownership of a CIPO registration for TD BANK, each independently demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See United Way of America v. Alex Zingaus, FA 1036202 (NAF Aug. 30, 2007) (“Panels have long recognized Complainant’s registration of a mark with a trademark authority is sufficient to confer rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)”).
Respondent’s <onlinebanking-tdbank.com> domain name contains Complainant’s TD BANK trademark prefixed with the generic term “online banking” and a hyphen, and trailed with the top-level domain name “.com.” These additions to Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish the at-issue domain name from Complainant’s TD BANK mark for the purpose of Policy ¶ 4 (a)(i). Notably, Respondent’s inclusion of the suggestive term “online banking” in the domain name only adds to any confusion. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <onlinebanking-tdbank.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TD BANK trademark. See Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also, Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name discloses “Evgenij Varnaxov / Private Person” as the domain name’s registrant. There is nothing in the record that otherwise suggests Respondent is commonly known by the <onlinebanking-tdbank.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also, Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names because the WHOIS information listed “Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a Electromatic Equip't” as the registrant and there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names in dispute).
Respondent’s confusingly similar domain name reaches an inactive webpage which displays an error message stating “This domain is not linked to any directory on the server!.” Respondent’s inactive holding of the at-issue domain name shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. xi long chen, FA 1786533 (Forum June 15, 2018) (“The disputed domain name resolves to a parked page with the message, “website coming soon!” The Panel finds that this use does not amount to a bona fide offering or good or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii) and Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect of the domain name.”); see also, Michelin North America, Inc. v. Energie Media Group, FA 451882 (Forum Aug. 7, 2012) (finding inactive use, or “passive holding,” of the disputed domain name by a respondent “permits the inference that [the respondent] lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names.”)
Given the forgoing, Complainant’s unrebutted showing that Respondent lacks rights or interests in the at-issue domain names satisfies Complainant’s burden under Policy ¶4(a)(ii) and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in the <onlinebanking-tdbank.com> domain name.
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel may conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
As considered above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent holds the <onlinebanking-tdbank.com> domain name inactively. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a webpage displaying the error message “This domain is not linked to any directory on the server!.” Respondent’s failure to make use of the at-issue domain name indicates its bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA1503001608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) (“Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Finally, Respondent registered the <onlinebanking-tdbank.com> domain name knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the TD BANK mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant’s trademark is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark throughout Canada and internationally. Respondent’s knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <onlinebanking-tdbank.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <onlinebanking-tdbank.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: November 25, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page