national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company v. Michael Huang

Claim Number:  FA0411000367681

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company (“Complainant”), represented by Paul I. Perlman, of Hodgson Russ LLP, One M&T Plaza, Suite 2000, Buffalo, NY 14203. Respondent is Michael Huang (“Respondent”), 5 Newton Road #8, Singapore, SG 307944.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <wwwmandtbank.com>, registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 22, 2004; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 24, 2004.

 

On November 22, 2004, Moniker Online Services, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain name <wwwmandtbank.com> is registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Moniker Online Services, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker Online Services, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On November 29, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 20, 2004 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@wwwmandtbank.com by e-mail.

 

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On December 30, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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."  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <wwwmandtbank.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s M&T BANK mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwmandtbank.com> domain name.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <wwwmandtbank.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company, provides a wide range of banking services. Complainant holds several registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the M & T mark (Reg. No. 918,217 issued August 10, 1971 and Reg. No. 2,656,920 issued December 3, 2002) and other M&T-related marks. Complainant first began operations in 1856 under the mark MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS BANK. Complainant’s banking network includes 650 branches and it provides ATM access at more than 1,500 locations.

 

Complainant provides Internet banking to its customers through its website at the <mandtbank.com> domain name. Additionally, Complainant owns registrations for the <mandtbank.net>, <mandtbank.org> and <mandtbank.biz> domain names.

 

Complainant has used the M&T BANK mark in commerce since January 1, 1930 and has used its mark in its national advertising and on its <mandtbank.com> website.

 

Respondent registered the the <wwwmandtbank.com> domain name on April 30, 2003. Respondent is using the domain name to divert Internet users to a website that features a generic search engine and links to various banking organizations unrelated to Complainant. Users who reach the website also encounter numerous pop-up advertisements, which suggests that Respondent is benefiting financially based on the number of “hits” to its website.

 

DISCUSSION

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."

 

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(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant has established that it has rights in the M&T mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and by continuous use of its mark in commerce. See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.”); see also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive and that Respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption).

 

Furthermore, Complainant has also established common law rights in the M&T BANK mark. Complainant has used the mark in commerce since at least 1930 and has used the mark in its national advertising for banking services. Complainant has also reflected its mark in its <mandtbank.com> website which it has promoted in its national advertising. Thus, Complainant has provided evidence of secondary meaning associated with its M&T BANK mark. See Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law rights in a mark where its use was continuous and ongoing, and secondary meaning was established); see also S.A. Bendheim Co., Inc. v. Hollander Glass, FA 142318 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 13, 2003) (holding that Complainant established rights in the descriptive RESTORATION GLASS mark through proof of secondary meaning associated with the mark).

 

The <wwwmandtbank.com> domain name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to Complainant’s M&T BANK mark because the domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety, deviating from the mark with irrelevant differences such as the addition of the letter combination “www” and the replacement of the “&” symbol with the word “and.”  The addition of the letter combination “www” is insufficient to distinguish the domain name, because it merely takes advantage of a common typing error among Internet users in omitting a period. Furthermore, replacing the ampersand with the word “and” does not negate the confusing similarity of the domain name, because it is a common way of dealing with the fact that the ampersand symbol cannot be used in a domain name. See Wright & Lato, Inc. v. Epstein, D2000-0621 (WIPO Sept. 2, 2000) (finding that the <wrightandlato.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s WRIGHT & LATO mark, because the ampersand symbol (&) is not reproducible in a URL); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark BANK OF AMERICA because it “takes advantage of a typing error (eliminating the period between the www and the domain name) that users commonly make when searching on the Internet”).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwmandtbank.com> domain name. Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint and, therefore, the Panel assumes that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that where Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name it is incumbent on Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that once Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to Respondent to provide credible evidence that substantiates its claim of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name).

 

The <wwwmandtbank.com> domain name registered by Respondent is a typosquatted version of Complainant’s M&T BANK mark, which is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a website that features a generic search engine and displays links to various other banking organizations in competition with Complainant. Respondent’s use of a typosquatted domain name to redirect Internet users seeking Complainant’s products and services to Respondent’s unrelated website featuring links to Complainant’s competitiors is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Diners Club Int’l Ltd. v. Domain Admin******It's all in the name******, FA 156839 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s <wwwdinersclub.com> domain name, a typosquatted version of Complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark, was evidence in and of itself that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name vis-à-vis Complainant); see also Black & Decker Corp. v. Khan, FA 137223 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 3, 2003) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent used the typosquatted <wwwdewalt.com> domain name to divert Internet users to a search engine webpage, and failed to respond to the Complaint); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting as a means of redirecting consumers against their will to another site, does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services, whatever may be the goods or services offered at that site.”).

 

There is no evidence in the record to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the <wwwmandtbank.com> domain name and Respondent has offered no proof that it is commonly known by the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Additionally, Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its M&T BANK mark for any purpose. See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name); see also Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users seeking Complainant’s M&T BANK goods and services to Respondent’s commercial website at the <wwwmandtbank.com> domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion between Complainant’s mark and the domain name. Respondent’s website presumably generates income for Respondent through the use of sponsored links to Complainant’s competitors and pop-up advertisements. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s practice of diversion for commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if Respondent profits from its diversionary use of Complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and Respondent fails to contest the Complaint, it may be concluded that Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Comm. Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent registered and used an infringing domain name to attract users to a website sponsored by Respondent); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent directed Internet users seeking Complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain).

 

Furthermore, while each of the four circumstances listed under Policy ¶ 4(b), if proven, evidences bad faith use and registration of a domain name, additional factors can also be used to support findings of bad faith registration and use. See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (finding that in determining if a domain name has been registered in bad faith, the Panel must look at the “totality of circumstances”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“[T]he examples [of bad faith] in Paragraph 4(b) are intended to be illustrative, rather than exclusive.”).

 

Respondent’s registration and use of the <wwwmandtbank.com> domain name to divert Internet users interested in Complainant’s products and services to Respondent’s website takes advantage of a common typographical error made by Internet users who inadvertently omit the period in the Internet address. This practice is known as typosquatting and it is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Black & Decker Corp. v. Azra Khan, FA 137223 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 3, 2003) (finding the <wwwdewalt.com> domain name was registered to “ensnare those individuals who forget to type the period after the “www” portion of [a] web-address,” evidence that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting is the intentional misspelling of words with intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith”); see also RE/MAX Int’l, Inc. v. Seocho, FA 142046 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 25, 2003) (inferring that Respondent’s registration of the <wwwremax.com> domain name, incorporating Complainant’s entire mark, was done with actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to registering the infringing domain name, evidencing bad faith).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wwwmandtbank.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist

Dated:  January 13, 2005

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum