Citigroup Inc. v. Children Pulse Pvt. Ltd.
Claim Number: FA0704000953940
Complainant is Citigroup Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Paul
D. McGrady, of Greenberg Traurig, LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <citibankindia.org>, registered with Melbourne IT, Ltd.
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 Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 3, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 5, 2007.
On April 4, 2007, Melbourne IT, Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <citibankindia.org> domain name is registered with Melbourne IT, Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Melbourne IT, Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne IT, Ltd. 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 April 5, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 25, 2007, 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@citibankindia.org by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 2, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <citibankindia.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITIBANK mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <citibankindia.org> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <citibankindia.org> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Citigroup Inc., is one of the world’s largest
financial services companies. In
Complainant has registered variations of the CITI mark with
numerous trademark offices around the world.
In
Respondent’s <citibankindia.org> domain name, which it registered on December 25, 2004, resolves to a website displaying links to various content unrelated to Complainant.
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’s numerous trademark registrations for the
CITIBANK mark around the world, including in
The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in the <citibankindia.org>
domain name. Complainant must first make
a prima facie case in support of its allegations, and then the burden
shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie
case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent
to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see
also Document Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Elec. Commc’ns Inc.,
D2000-0270 (WIPO June 6, 2000) (“Although Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires
that the Complainant prove the presence of this element (along with the other
two), once a Complainant makes out a prima facie showing, the burden of
production on this factor shifts to the Respondent to rebut the showing by
providing concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in
the Domain Name.”).
Respondent’s failure to answer the Complaint raises a
presumption that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <citibankindia.org> domain name. See
Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no
rights or legitimate interests where the respondent fails to respond); see
also BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co.
KG v. Tweed, D2000-0418 (WIPO June 20, 2000) (“By not submitting a
response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could
demonstrate, pursuant to ¶ 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate
interests in the domain name”). However, the Panel will now examine the record to determine
if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Respondent has registered the domain name under the name “Children Pulse Pvt. Ltd.,” and there is no
other evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by
the <citibankindia.org> domain
name. Thus, Respondent has not
established rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain name
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See M. Shanken Commc’ns v.
WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding
that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com>
domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other
evidence in the record); see also Wells Fargo
& Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc.,
FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the WHOIS contact information
for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that Respondent, Onlyne Corporate
Services11, is not commonly known by the name ‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”).
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website with links to various content unrelated to Complainant. Respondent presumably earns click-through fees for each consumer it diverts to these third-party websites. The Panel cannot characterize such use as 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 Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble, FA 918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name was not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that the respondent’s commercial use of a confusingly similar domain name suggests that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).
The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent has registered and is using the <citibankindia.org> domain name
in order to maintain a website with links to various other websites unrelated
to Complainant. Respondent is taking
advantage of the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and
Complainant’s mark in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the
mark. Such registration and use
constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See The Ass’n of Junior Leagues Int’l Inc. v.
This Domain Name My Be For
The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied 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 <citibankindia.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: May 14, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum