The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc and The Royal Bank of Scotland International Limited v. Andrey Razinskiy
Claim Number: FA0608000785512
Complainants are The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc and The Royal Bank of Scotland International Limited (collectively, “Complainant”), represented by James A. Thomas, of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein L.L.P., 150 Fayetteville Street Mall, Suite 1400, Post Office Box 389, Raleigh, NC 27602. Respondent is Andrey Razinskiy (“Respondent”), Entuziastov 18, 54, Moscow 101000, RU.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <rbsibt.com>, <rbsimt.com>, <rbsin.com>, <rbsinr.com>, <rbsiny.com>, <rbsitn.com>, <rbsnit.com>, <rbsont.com>, <rbssint.com>, <rbsunt.com>, <rbsynt.com>, <rbsdint.com>, <rbsinbt.com>, <rbsinmt.com>, <rbsinrt.com>, <rbsintc.com>, <rbsinte.com>, <rbsintt.com>, <rbsinyc.com>, <rbsinyt.com>, <rbsivt.com>, <rbsoiint.com>, and <rbsuint.com>, registered with Onlinenic, Inc.
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.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 25, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 30, 2006.
On August 29, 2006, Onlinenic, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <rbsibt.com>, <rbsimt.com>, <rbsin.com>, <rbsinr.com>, <rbsiny.com>, <rbsitn.com>, <rbsnit.com>, <rbsont.com>, <rbssint.com>, <rbsunt.com>, <rbsynt.com>, <rbsdint.com>, <rbsinbt.com>, <rbsinmt.com>, <rbsinrt.com>, <rbsintc.com>, <rbsinte.com>, <rbsintt.com>, <rbsinyc.com>, <rbsinyt.com>, <rbsivt.com>, <rbsoiint.com>, and <rbsuint.com> domain names are registered with Onlinenic, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Onlinenic, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Onlinenic, 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 September 5, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 25, 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@rbsibt.com, postmaster@rbsimt.com, postmaster@rbsin.com, postmaster@rbsinr.com, postmaster@rbsiny.com, postmaster@rbsitn.com, postmaster@rbsnit.com, postmaster@rbsont.com, postmaster@rbssint.com, postmaster@rbsunt.com, postmaster@rbsynt.com, postmaster@rbsdint.com, postmaster@rbsinbt.com, postmaster@rbsinmt.com, postmaster@rbsinrt.com, postmaster@rbsintc.com, postmaster@rbsinte.com, postmaster@rbsintt.com, postmaster@rbsinyc.com, postmaster@rbsinyt.com, postmaster@rbsivt.com, postmaster@rbsoiint.com, and postmaster@rbsuint.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 2, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., 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 <rbsibt.com>, <rbsimt.com>, <rbsin.com>, <rbsinr.com>, <rbsiny.com>, <rbsitn.com>, <rbsnit.com>, <rbsont.com>, <rbssint.com>, <rbsunt.com>, <rbsynt.com>, <rbsdint.com>, <rbsinbt.com>, <rbsinmt.com>, <rbsinrt.com>, <rbsintc.com>, <rbsinte.com>, <rbsintt.com>, <rbsinyc.com>, <rbsinyt.com>, <rbsivt.com>, <rbsoiint.com>, and <rbsuint.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s RBSI mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <rbsibt.com>, <rbsimt.com>, <rbsin.com>, <rbsinr.com>, <rbsiny.com>, <rbsitn.com>, <rbsnit.com>, <rbsont.com>, <rbssint.com>, <rbsunt.com>, <rbsynt.com>, <rbsdint.com>, <rbsinbt.com>, <rbsinmt.com>, <rbsinrt.com>, <rbsintc.com>, <rbsinte.com>, <rbsintt.com>, <rbsinyc.com>, <rbsinyt.com>, <rbsivt.com>, <rbsoiint.com>, and <rbsuint.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <rbsibt.com>, <rbsimt.com>, <rbsin.com>, <rbsinr.com>, <rbsiny.com>, <rbsitn.com>, <rbsnit.com>, <rbsont.com>, <rbssint.com>, <rbsunt.com>, <rbsynt.com>, <rbsdint.com>, <rbsinbt.com>, <rbsinmt.com>, <rbsinrt.com>, <rbsintc.com>, <rbsinte.com>, <rbsintt.com>, <rbsinyc.com>, <rbsinyt.com>, <rbsivt.com>, <rbsoiint.com>, and <rbsuint.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, is a global financial services group that
offers a variety of financial products and services, including consumer and
commercial lending, credit card services, investment and advisory services, and
real estate services. The Royal
Bank of Scotland International Limited, a subsidiary of The Royal Bank of
Scotland Group plc, is one of the largest offshore banks in the world. The Royal Bank of Scotland International
Limited provides various banking services for commercial, corporate, and
financial intermediary customers, and for high net worth and expatriate
personal customers, including lending, treasury, investment management, and
global custody services. Hereinafter,
the two entities will be referred to collectively as “Complainant.” Complainant holds several trademark
registrations for the RBSI mark with the United Kingdom Patent Office (i.e.,
Reg. No. 2,386,337 issued September 16, 2005), as well as with the European
Union Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market. Complainant also holds the
<rbsint.com> domain name registration, through which Complainant operates
a website in connection with its offering of banking services.
Respondent, Andrey Razinskiy, registered the <rbsibt.com>, <rbsimt.com>, <rbsin.com>, <rbsinr.com>, <rbsiny.com>, <rbsitn.com>, <rbsnit.com>, <rbsont.com>, <rbssint.com>, <rbsunt.com>, and <rbsynt.com> domain names on November 22, 2005. Respondent registered the <rbsdint.com>, <rbsinbt.com>, <rbsinmt.com>, <rbsinrt.com>, <rbsintc.com>, <rbsinyc.com>, <rbsinyt.com> <rbsoiint.com>, and <rbsuint.com> domain names on December 14, 2005. Respondent registered the <rbsinte.com>, <rbsintt.com>, and <rbsivt.com> domain names on November 23, 2005. Respondent’s <rbsibt.com>, <rbsimt.com>, <rbsin.com>, <rbsinr.com>, <rbsiny.com>, <rbsitn.com>, <rbsnit.com>, <rbsont.com>, <rbssint.com>, <rbsunt.com>, and <rbsynt.com> domain names previously resolved to a website located at <rbsinternatianal.com>, which consisted of an imitation of Complainant’s website and which prompted Internet users to enter personal information relating to their bank accounts with Complainant, including customer numbers, social security numbers, and passwords. At the time of the filing of Complainant’s Complaint, Respondent’s aforementioned domain names did not resolve to active websites. Respondent’s <rbsdint.com>, <rbsinbt.com>, <rbsinmt.com>, <rbsinrt.com>, <rbsintc.com>, <rbsinte.com>, <rbsintt.com>, <rbsinyc.com>, <rbsinyt.com>, <rbsivt.com>, <rbsoiint.com>, and <rbsuint.com> domain names likewise do not resolve to active websites.
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 asserts and provides evidence of several trademark registrations for the RBSI mark with both the United Kingdom Patent Office and the European Union Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market. Previous panels have held that a complainant’s registration of its mark in the jurisdiction in which it operates satisfies the requirement of establishing rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See KCTS Television Inc. v. Get-on-the-Web Ltd., D2001-0154 (WIPO Apr. 20, 2001) (holding that it does not matter for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy whether the complainant’s mark is registered in a country other than that of the respondent’s place of business); see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction). Therefore, the Panel in the instant case finds that Complainant’s trademark registrations for the RBSI mark sufficiently demonstrate Complainant’s rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Morris, FA 569033 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2005) (“Complainant has established rights in the AIG mark through registration of the mark with several trademark authorities throughout the world, including the United States Patent and Trademark office (‘USPTO’)… .”); 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.”).
Furthermore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <rbsibt.com>, <rbsimt.com>, <rbsin.com>, <rbsinr.com>, <rbsiny.com>, <rbsitn.com>, <rbsnit.com>, <rbsont.com>, <rbssint.com>, <rbsunt.com>, <rbsynt.com>, <rbsdint.com>, <rbsinbt.com>, <rbsinmt.com>, <rbsinrt.com>, <rbsintc.com>, <rbsinte.com>, <rbsintt.com>, <rbsinyc.com>, <rbsinyt.com>, <rbsivt.com>, <rbsoiint.com>, and <rbsuint.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s RBSI mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The disputed domain names consist of Complainant’s RBSI mark with the addition of letters that are located in close proximity to those necessary for the typing of Complainant’s domain name <rbsint.com>. Thus, the Panel finds that the slight misspellings and alterations to Complainant’s mark utilized by Respondent in its disputed domain names constitute typosquatting, and do not negate the creation of confusing similarity between Respondent’s disputed domain names and Complainant’s registered mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Internet Movie Database, Inc. v. Temme, FA 449837 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 24, 2005)(finding that the respondent’s disputed domain names were confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark because the disputed domain names were common misspellings of the mark involving keys that were adjacent to the current keys comprising the complainant’s mark); see also Nextel Commc'ns Inc. v. Geer, FA 477183 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 15, 2005) (finding that the respondent's registration and use of the <nextell.com> domain name was in bad faith because the domain name epitomized typosquatting in its purest form).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must initially demonstrate that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests with regard to the disputed domain names. However, once Complainant establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts, and Respondent must demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in connection with the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that once the complainant asserts that the 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”); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case and will examine the evidence on record to determine whether Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).
The evidence on record fails to indicate that Respondent is commonly known by any of the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant asserts that Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s RBSI mark. Furthermore, Respondent’s WHOIS information does not suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Thus, the Panel finds that the evidence does not establish that Respondent is commonly known by the <rbsibt.com>, <rbsimt.com>, <rbsin.com>, <rbsinr.com>, <rbsiny.com>, <rbsitn.com>, <rbsnit.com>, <rbsont.com>, <rbssint.com>, <rbsunt.com>, <rbsynt.com>, <rbsdint.com>, <rbsinbt.com>, <rbsinmt.com>, <rbsinrt.com>, <rbsintc.com>, <rbsinte.com>, <rbsintt.com>, <rbsinyc.com>, <rbsinyt.com>, <rbsivt.com>, <rbsoiint.com>, and <rbsuint.com> domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name); 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”).
Moreover, Respondent was previously using the <rbsibt.com>, <rbsimt.com>, <rbsin.com>, <rbsinr.com>, <rbsiny.com>, <rbsitn.com>, <rbsnit.com>, <rbsont.com>, <rbssint.com>, <rbsunt.com>, <rbsynt.com> domain names to operate a website that imitated Complainant’s website and prompted Internet users to enter personal information, including customer bank account numbers, social security numbers, and passwords. As a result, the Panel finds that Respondent engaged in “phishing,” which does not constitute either 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 Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Nelson, FA 241972 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 29, 2004) (“‘Phishing’ involves the use of e-mails, pop-ups or other methods to trick Internet users into revealing credit cards, passwords, social security numbers and other personal information to the ‘phishers’ who intend to use such information for fraudulent purposes.”); see also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s diversion of Internet users to a third-party website for the purpose of fraudulently acquiring their personal information constitutes 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)).
Additionally, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <rbsdint.com>, <rbsinbt.com>, <rbsinmt.com>, <rbsinrt.com>, <rbsintc.com>, <rbsinte.com>, <rbsintt.com>, <rbsinyc.com>, <rbsinyt.com>, <rbsivt.com>, <rbsoiint.com>, and <rbsuint.com> domain names do not resolve to active websites. Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to use or make preparations to use the disputed domain names demonstrates that Respondent does not possess rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain names in accord with Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Hanna-Barbera Prod., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s failure to use or make demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name suggests that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Nike, Inc. v. Crystal Int’l, D2001-0102 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent made no use of the infringing domain names).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
In light of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain
names, which feature slight typographical misspellings of Complainant’s mark,
the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting. Consequently, the Panel concludes that
Respondent’s typosquatting activity indicates bad faith registration and use
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See
Myspace, Inc. v. Kang, FA 672160
(Nat. Arb. Forum June 19, 2006) (“Respondent misspells the Mark with intent to
intercept internet users from Complainant's web site, given the fact that
Complainant's website is a popular website and the Disputed Domain Name is a
misspelling of the Mark which is highly likely to occur. This typosquatting is evidence of bad
faith.”); see also Nextel Commc'ns Inc. v. Geer, FA 477183 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Jul. 15, 2005) (finding that the respondent's registration and use
of the <nextell.com> domain name was in bad faith because the domain name
epitomized typosquatting in its purest form).
Furthermore, the
evidence on record suggests that Respondent used eleven of the disputed domain
names in connection with a “phishing” scheme seeking to obtain personal
information from Internet users.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s conduct indicates bad faith
registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Juno
Online Servs., Inc. v. Nelson, FA 241972 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 29, 2004)
(“The domain name <billing-juno.com> was registered and used in bad faith
by using the name for fraudulent purposes.”); see also Capital One
Fin. Corp. v. Howel, FA 289304 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding bad
faith registration and use because the respondent used the domain name to
redirect Internet users to a website that imitated the complainant’s website
and to fraudulently acquire personal information from the complainant’s
clients).
Additionally, Respondent failed to make any use of the twelve remaining disputed domain names, as those disputed domain names resolve to inactive websites. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s lack of use of the disputed domain name evinces bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Mondich v. Brown, D2000-0004 (WIPO Feb. 16, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to develop its website in a two year period raises the inference of registration in bad faith); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <rbsibt.com>, <rbsimt.com>, <rbsin.com>, <rbsinr.com>, <rbsiny.com>, <rbsitn.com>, <rbsnit.com>, <rbsont.com>, <rbssint.com>, <rbsunt.com>, <rbsynt.com>, <rbsdint.com>, <rbsinbt.com>, <rbsinmt.com>, <rbsinrt.com>, <rbsintc.com>, <rbsinte.com>, <rbsintt.com>, <rbsinyc.com>, <rbsinyt.com>, <rbsivt.com>, <rbsoiint.com>, and <rbsuint.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: October 16, 2006
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum