UBS AG v. Juliana Rivas
Claim Number: FA1812001820143
Complainant is UBS AG (“Complainant”), represented by Patrick J. Jennings of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Juliana Rivas (“Respondent”), Spain.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ubsfinanzgroup.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 10, 2018; the Forum received payment on December 10, 2018.
On December 11, 2018, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <ubsfinanzgroup.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 11, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 31, 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@ubsfinanzgroup.com. Also on December 11, 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 January 4, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC 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 made the following contentions:
Complainant, UBS AG, is one of the largest financial services firms in the world. Complainant uses its UBS mark to promote its products and services and has rights in the mark through its trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,573,828, registered Dec. 26, 1989). See Compl. Annex 3. Respondent’s <ubsfinanzgroup.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UBS mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and is differentiated only by the addition of the generic terms “finanz group” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <ubsfinanzgroup.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the UBS mark in any manner. Respondent has failed to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant.
Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant for commercial gain by defrauding Internet users. Further, Respondent registered the <ubsfinanzgroup.com> domain name with constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the UBS mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. Complainant is a Swiss company that is one of the largest financial services firms in the world.
2. Complainant has established its trademark rights in the UBS mark through its registrations of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,573,828, registered Dec. 26, 1989)
3. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 29, 2018.
4. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant for commercial gain by defrauding Internet users.
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 first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. Complainant submits that it has rights in the UBS mark based upon registration of the mark with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum Jul. 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the Complainant’s rights in the HOME DEPOT mark). Complainant provides a copy of its USPTO registration for the UBS mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,573,828, registered Dec. 26, 1989). See Compl. Annex 3. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant’s registration of the UBS mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s UBS mark. Complainant submits that Respondent’s <ubsfinanzgroup.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UBS mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and is differentiated only by the addition of the generic term “finanz group” and the “.com” gTLD. Generally, adding generic terms and a gTLD are insufficient changes to make the at-issue domain name distinct. See Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company v. Waseem A Ali / Micron Web Services, FA 1785616 (Forum June 8, 2018) (finding the <starbucksreal.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the STARBUCKS mark, as “the addition of the generic term ‘real’ to Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy.”); see also MTD Products Inc v. Mike Kernea / Skyline, FA 1775278 (Forum Apr. 19, 2018) (“The mere addition of a gTLD is inconsequential and does not avoid a finding of identity.”). Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <ubsfinanzgroup.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UBS mark.
Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
It is now well established that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations:
(a) Respondent has chosen to take Complainant’s UBS trademark and to use it in its domain name, adding the generic term “finanz group” that does not negate the confusing similarity of the domain name with Complainant’s trademark;
(b) Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 29, 2018;
(c) Respondent has used the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant for commercial gain by defrauding Internet users;
(d) Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or approval of Complainant;
(e) Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <ubsfinanzgroup.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the UBS mark. Where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information can be used to identify the respondent. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization from the complainant to use its mark may be further evidence that a respondent is not commonly known by a domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”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 interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.”). The WHOIS information for the <ubsfinanzgroup.com> domain name identifies the Respondent as “Juliana Rivas.” Complainant contends that Respondent was never authorized to use the UBS mark in any manner. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under a Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) analysis;
(f) Complainant contends that Respondent uses the <ubsfinanzgroup.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. Use of a domain name to pass off as a complainant may not be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant’s mark and various photographs related to the complainant’s business). Complainant provides screenshots of the <ubsfinanzgroup.com> website that contains Complainant’s UBS mark and logo and features information relating to banking and financial matters, which Complainant submits falsely suggests a partnership, connection, and affiliation with Complainant. See Compl. Annex 4. The Panel agrees. Therefore, the Panel holds that Respondent failed to use the <ubsfinanzgroup.com> domain name for a legitimate Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) use.
All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.
It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and has been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons.
First, Complainant submits that Respondent registered and uses the <ubsfinanzgroup.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent is using the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant by defrauding Internet users for commercial gain. Use of a domain to pass off as complainant for commercial gain through any means may evidence bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Mihael, FA 605221 (Forum Jan. 16, 2006) (“Complainant asserts,…that soon after the disputed domain name was registered, Respondent arranged for it to resolve to a web site closely resembling a legitimate site of Complainant, called a ‘doppelganger’ (for double or duplicate) page, the purpose of which is to deceive Complainant’s customers into providing to Respondent their login identification, social security numbers, and/or account information and Personal Identification Numbers…. The Panel finds that Respondent’s behavior, as alleged, constitutes bad faith registration and use of the subject domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”). The Panel notes that Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage that contains Complainant’s UBS mark and logo and features information relating to banking and financial matters, which Complainant submits falsely suggests a partnership, connection, and affiliation with Complainant. See Compl. Annex 4. Accordingly, the Panel holds that Respondent registered and used the <ubsfinanzgroup.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Secondly, Complainant argues that Respondent registered the <ubsfinanzgroup.com> domain name with constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the UBS mark. Arguments of bad faith based on constructive notice are usually not successful as prior UDRP decisions do not find bad faith as a result of constructive knowledge. See The Way Int'l, Inc. v. Diamond Peters, D2003-0264 (WIPO May 29, 2003) ("As to constructive knowledge, the Panel takes the view that there is no place for such a concept under the Policy."). Actual knowledge, however, of a complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name is adequate evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). Additionally, a respondent may have actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark when a complainant’s mark is famous. See Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. Michael Bach, FA 1426668 (Forum Mar. 2, 2012) (“Although Complainant has not submitted evidence indicating actual knowledge by Respondent of its rights in the trademark, the Panel finds that, due to the fame of Complainant’s [VICTORIA’S SECRET] mark, Respondent had actual notice at the time of the domain name registration and therefore registered the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Here, Complainant’s UBS mark has created significant good will and consumer recognition around the world and was first used by Complainant in 1962. See Compl. p. 3. Complainant also provides additional information about Complainant in support of its contentions. See Compl. Annex 3. Therefore, due to the fame of Complainant’s mark, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights when the <ubsfinanzgroup.com> domain name was registered and subsequently used.
Finally, in addition and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name using the UBS mark and in view of the conduct that Respondent has engaged in when using the disputed domain name, Respondent registered and used it in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ubsfinanzgroup.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC
Panelist
Dated: January 7, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page