Wells Fargo & Company v. Digitallbre c/o Hasan Hasanaja
Claim Number: FA0512000606111
Complainant is Wells Fargo & Company (“Complainant”), represented by Deborah Shinbein, of Faegre & Benson, LLP, 1700 Lincoln St., Suite 3200, Denver, CO 80202-4004. Respondent is Digitallbre c/o Hasan Hasanaja (“Respondent”), Boyenstr. 46, Berlin, 10115, DE.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <security-wellsfargo-bank.com>, registered with UnitedDomains.de.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 7, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 9, 2005. The Complaint was submitted in both German and English
On December 13, 2005, UnitedDomains.de confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <security-wellsfargo-bank.com> domain name is registered with UnitedDomains.de and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. UnitedDomains.de has verified that Respondent is bound by the UnitedDomains.de 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 15, 2005, a German language Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 4, 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@security-wellsfargo-bank.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 11, 2006, 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.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the German language Complaint and Commencement Notification and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <security-wellsfargo-bank.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <security-wellsfargo-bank.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <security-wellsfargo-bank.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Wells Fargo & Company, is a diversified financial services company with $ 422 billion in assets and 146,000 employees, providing banking, insurance, investments, mortgages, and consumer finance for more than 27 million customers through over 6,000 locations. Complainant is the issuer of 6 million credit card accounts, and was the number one originator of home mortgages in the United States in 2003. Complainant registered the WELLS FARGO mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on October 27, 1964 (Reg. No. 779,187).
Respondent, Digitallbre, registered the disputed domain name on July 8, 2005. The website associated with the disputed domain name requests personal information from the Internet user, including bank card, social security number, and PIN information.
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 offers its USPTO registration to demonstrate
rights in the WELLS FARGO mark. The
Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in its mark pursuant to
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.”); 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 Panel finds that the <security-wellsfargo-bank.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark because
the only differences are the addition of the hyphens and the words “security”
and “bank,” which do not significantly distinguish the domain name from the
mark. See Chernow Commc’ns, Inc. v.
Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (holding “that the use or absence
of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is
identical to a mark"); Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA
96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that the <hoylecasino.net>
domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s HOYLE mark, and that
the addition of “casino,” a generic word describing the type of business in
which the complainant is engaged, does not take the disputed domain name out of
the realm of confusing similarity); Pfizer, Inc. v. Suger, D2002-0187
(WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the subject domain name incorporates
the VIAGRA mark in its entirety, and deviates only by the addition of the word
“bomb,” the domain name is rendered confusingly similar to the complainant’s
mark).
The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that appropriating Complainant’s mark to
dupe Complainant’s customers into volunteering personal information is neither
a bona fide offering of a good or service pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)
nor 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) (finding that using a domain name in a fraudulent scheme to deceive
Internet users into providing their credit card and personal information is not
a bona fide offering of goods or
services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); Capital One Fin. Corp.
v. Howel, FA 289304 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding that using a
domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that imitated the
complainant’s credit application website and attempted to fraudulently acquire
personal information from the complainant’s clients was not a bona fide
offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
The Panel finds that there is nothing in the record,
including the WHOIS registration information, which demonstrates that
Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi,
FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s
WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed
domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not
apply); 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).
The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to
fraudulently acquire Complainant’s customers’ personal information. The Panel finds this scam, called
“phishing,” is evidence of bad faith registration and use. 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.”); 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).
The Panel finds that 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 <security-wellsfargo-bank.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: January 23, 2006
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum