Bank of America Corporation v. Spiral Matrix
Claim Number: FA0512000612013
Complainant is Bank of America Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Randel S. Springer of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, One West Fourth Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27101. Respondent is Spiral Matrix (“Respondent”), 1st Floor Muya House, Kenyatta Ave, P.O. Box 4276-30100, Eldoret, KE 30100, KE.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <bankofamericadebitcard.com>, <bankofamericaonlineaccounts.com>, <bankofamericaplatinumvisa.com>, <bankofamericaprivatebank.com>, <bankofamericasavingsaccounts.com>, <bankofamericastockquotes.com>, <bankofamericatravelcard.com>, <bankofamericatravelscard.com>, <bankofamericabranchlocation.com>, <bankofamericacomcreditcarddecisions.com>, <bankofamericaeagle.com>, <bankofamericamuseum.com>, <bankofamericahomelinksmonlinebanki.com>, <bankofamericaonlinebankingflorida.com>, <bankofamericaonlinebankingtexas.com>, <bankofamericaonlineflorida.com>, <bankofamericaonlinehomepersonal.com>, <bankameriac.com>, <bankofamericacardmemberservices.com> and <bankofamericamerchantservice.com>, registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.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.
James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 19, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 27, 2005.
On December 20, 2005, Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <bankofamericadebitcard.com>, <bankofamericaonlineaccounts.com>, <bankofamericaplatinumvisa.com>, <bankofamericaprivatebank.com>, <bankofamericasavingsaccounts.com>, <bankofamericastockquotes.com>, <bankofamericatravelcard.com>, <bankofamericatravelscard.com>, <bankofamericabranchlocation.com>, <bankofamericacomcreditcarddecisions.com>, <bankofamericaeagle.com>, <bankofamericamuseum.com>, <bankofamericahomelinksmonlinebanki.com>, <bankofamericaonlinebankingflorida.com>, <bankofamericaonlinebankingtexas.com>, <bankofamericaonlineflorida.com>, <bankofamericaonlinehomepersonal.com>, <bankameriac.com>, <bankofamericacardmemberservices.com> and <bankofamericamerchantservice.com> domain names are registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com 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 December 28, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 17, 2006 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@bankofamericadebitcard.com, postmaster@bankofamericaonlineaccounts.com, postmaster@bankofamericaplatinumvisa.com, postmaster@bankofamericaprivatebank.com, postmaster@bankofamericasavingsaccounts.com, postmaster@bankofamericastockquotes.com, postmaster@bankofamericatravelcard.com, postmaster@bankofamericatravelscard.com, postmaster@bankofamericabranchlocation.com, postmaster@bankofamericacomcreditcarddecisions.com, postmaster@bankofamericaeagle.com, postmaster@bankofamericamuseum.com, postmaster@bankofamericahomelinksmonlinebanki.com, postmaster@bankofamericaonlinebankingflorida.com, postmaster@bankofamericaonlinebankingtexas.com, postmaster@bankofamericaonlineflorida.com, postmaster@bankofamericaonlinehomepersonal.com, postmaster@bankameriac.com, postmaster@bankofamericacardmemberservices.com and postmaster@bankofamericamerchantservice.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 20, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., 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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <bankofamericadebitcard.com>, <bankofamericaonlineaccounts.com>, <bankofamericaplatinumvisa.com>, <bankofamericaprivatebank.com>, <bankofamericasavingsaccounts.com>, <bankofamericastockquotes.com>, <bankofamericatravelcard.com>, <bankofamericatravelscard.com>, <bankofamericabranchlocation.com>, <bankofamericacomcreditcarddecisions.com>, <bankofamericaeagle.com>, <bankofamericamuseum.com>, <bankofamericahomelinksmonlinebanki.com>, <bankofamericaonlinebankingflorida.com>, <bankofamericaonlinebankingtexas.com>, <bankofamericaonlineflorida.com>, <bankofamericaonlinehomepersonal.com>, <bankameriac.com>, <bankofamericacardmemberservices.com> and <bankofamericamerchantservice.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <bankofamericadebitcard.com>, <bankofamericaonlineaccounts.com>, <bankofamericaplatinumvisa.com>, <bankofamericaprivatebank.com>, <bankofamericasavingsaccounts.com>, <bankofamericastockquotes.com>, <bankofamericatravelcard.com>, <bankofamericatravelscard.com>, <bankofamericabranchlocation.com>, <bankofamericacomcreditcarddecisions.com>, <bankofamericaeagle.com>, <bankofamericamuseum.com>, <bankofamericahomelinksmonlinebanki.com>, <bankofamericaonlinebankingflorida.com>, <bankofamericaonlinebankingtexas.com>, <bankofamericaonlineflorida.com>, <bankofamericaonlinehomepersonal.com>, <bankameriac.com>, <bankofamericacardmemberservices.com> and <bankofamericamerchantservice.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <bankofamericadebitcard.com>, <bankofamericaonlineaccounts.com>, <bankofamericaplatinumvisa.com>, <bankofamericaprivatebank.com>, <bankofamericasavingsaccounts.com>, <bankofamericastockquotes.com>, <bankofamericatravelcard.com>, <bankofamericatravelscard.com>, <bankofamericabranchlocation.com>, <bankofamericacomcreditcarddecisions.com>, <bankofamericaeagle.com>, <bankofamericamuseum.com>, <bankofamericahomelinksmonlinebanki.com>, <bankofamericaonlinebankingflorida.com>, <bankofamericaonlinebankingtexas.com>, <bankofamericaonlineflorida.com>, <bankofamericaonlinehomepersonal.com>, <bankameriac.com>, <bankofamericacardmemberservices.com> and <bankofamericamerchantservice.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Bank of America Corporation, is the second
largest banking company in the world with 5,800 banking centers in twenty-nine
states and the District of Columbia and international offices in thirty-one
countries. Through its predecessors in
interest, Complainant has used the BANK OF AMERICA mark since at least 1928.
Complainant holds numerous registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its BANK OF AMERICA mark (Reg. No. 853,860 issued July 30, 1968).
Respondent registered the disputed domain names between June 26, 2005 and July 17, 2005. Respondent is using the disputed domain names to operate directory websites that display links to numerous products and services, including some of Complainant’s competitors. Presumably, Respondent earns referral fees when Internet users click on these links.
Respondent’s <bankofamericaplatinumvisa.com> domain name incorporates a third party’s mark and interests. Specifically, the VISA mark is implicated by way of Respondent’s domain name. Due to practical difficulties inherent in the UDRP, cooperative complaint initiation is unlikely and infeasible. Because Complainant initiated this dispute prior to any other interested party, Complainant has the opportunity to acquire the domain names, while seeking to protect its BANK OF AMERICA mark from an infringing use. However, due to the procedural complexities presented by the current dispute, the following issue must be addressed: that Complainant seeks acquisition of the subject domain name in good faith, and will forfeit its interest in the contested domain name if the other represented mark is infringed upon following a transfer of the domain name registration to Complainant. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (finding that the complainant’s continuing control of the <viagra-xenical-celebrex-propecia-meridia-zyban.com> domain name was contingent upon good faith possession, and the complainant would forfeit its interest in the domain name if it infringed on the other represented marks); see also G.D. Searle v. Dunham, FA 123901 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 9, 2002); see also V&S Vin & Sprit Aktiebolag (publ) v. Pride Not Profit, Inc., FA 452057 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2005).
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. 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 (Nat. Arb. 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.”).
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.
Complainant has provided evidence of its registration of the BANK OF AMERICA mark with the USPTO. The Panel determines that Complainant has, therefore, established rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”); see also Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”).
The <bankofamericadebitcard.com>, <bankofamericaonlineaccounts.com>, <bankofamericaplatinumvisa.com>, <bankofamericaprivatebank.com>, <bankofamericasavingsaccounts.com>, <bankofamericastockquotes.com>, <bankofamericatravelcard.com>, <bankofamericatravelscard.com>, <bankofamericabranchlocation.com>, <bankofamericacomcreditcarddecisions.com>, <bankofamericaeagle.com>, <bankofamericamuseum.com>, <bankofamericahomelinksmonlinebanki.com>, <bankofamericaonlinebankingflorida.com>, <bankofamericaonlinebankingtexas.com>, <bankofamericaonlineflorida.com>, <bankofamericaonlinehomepersonal.com>, <bankofamericacardmemberservices.com> and <bankofamericamerchantservice.com> domain names include Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA mark in its entirety and add common or descriptive terms, geographic designations, or a third-party mark. In addition, all the domain names add the generic top-level domain “.com.” All of these changes are insufficient to distinguish the domain names from Complainant’s mark, and the Panel concludes that the domain names are confusingly similar under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Anytime Online Traffic Sch., FA 146930 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 11, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s domain names, which incorporated the complainant’s entire mark and merely added the descriptive terms “traffic school,” “defensive driving,” and “driver improvement” did not add any distinctive features capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity); see also PNC Fin. Servs. Group Inc. v. Unasi Inc., FA 535925 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 20, 2005) (finding the <pncbankmastercard.com>, <pncbankvisa.com> and <pncbankvisacard.com> domain names confusingly similar to the complainant’s PNCBANK.COM mark); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
The <bankameriac.com> domain name is also confusingly similar to Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA mark. The domain name omits “of” from Complainant’s mark and transposes the letters “a” and “c.” These changes do not sufficiently alter the mark to overcome a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Saul Zaentz Co. v. Dodds, FA 233054 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2004) (the domain name merely omitted the definite article “the” and the preposition “of” from the complainant’s mark and thus, failed to “sufficiently distinguish the domain name from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)”); see also Pier 1 Imps., Inc. v. Success Work, D2001-0419 (WIPO May 16, 2001) (finding that the domain name <peir1.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant's PIER 1 mark).
Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The initial burden under Policy ¶4(a)(ii) is on Complainant to prove Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Once Complainant has made a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to the directions provided in Policy ¶4(c). See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (describing the burden shifting from the complainant to the respondent regarding rights and legitimate interests); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (once the complainant asserts respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”). The Panel finds Complainant has presented a prima facie case, and the Panel now chooses to consider whether an evaluation of all the evidence demonstrates rights or legitimate interests for Respondent under Policy ¶ 4(c).
There is no evidence before the Panel suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by any of the disputed domain names. In addition, Complainant asserts that Respondent is in no way affiliated with Complainant, and Complainant has not consented to Respondent’s use of domain names containing Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA mark or any variation thereof. Thus, the Panel determines that Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark); see also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail").
Complainant asserts that Respondent is using the disputed domain names to operate directory websites that display links to various products and services, including some in competition with Complainant. The Panel presumes that Respondent receives referral fees for linking Internet users to these websites through its domain name. Respondent’s use of Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA mark and confusingly similar versions thereof to profit from its directory website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev, FA 156716 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to the complainant’s mark, websites where the respondent presumably receives a referral fee for each misdirected Internet user, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the Policy).
Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users searching for Complainant’s financial services and products to Respondent’s directory websites, which display links that benefit Respondent through referral fees. This use demonstrates Respondent’s intent to attract Internet users to its website by creating confusion with Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA mark. The registration and use of confusingly similar versions of Complainant’s mark to divert Internet users for Respondent’s commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Commc’ns Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent registered and used a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to attract users to a website sponsored by the respondent); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent directed Internet users seeking the complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain).
Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bankofamericadebitcard.com>, <bankofamericaonlineaccounts.com>, <bankofamericaplatinumvisa.com>, <bankofamericaprivatebank.com>, <bankofamericasavingsaccounts.com>, <bankofamericastockquotes.com>, <bankofamericatravelcard.com>, <bankofamericatravelscard.com>, <bankofamericabranchlocation.com>, <bankofamericacomcreditcarddecisions.com>, <bankofamericaeagle.com>, <bankofamericamuseum.com>, <bankofamericahomelinksmonlinebanki.com>, <bankofamericaonlinebankingflorida.com>, <bankofamericaonlinebankingtexas.com>, <bankofamericaonlineflorida.com>, <bankofamericaonlinehomepersonal.com>, <bankameriac.com>, <bankofamericacardmemberservices.com> and <bankofamericamerchantservice.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: February 2, 2006
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum