The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v. Bill Richardson / My Privacy Web
Claim Number: FA1603001663534
Complainant is The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Daniel Greenberg of Lexsynergy Limited, United Kingdom. Respondent is Bill Richardson / My Privacy Web (“Respondent”), Washington, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <standardbankrecord.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 2, 2016; the Forum received payment on March 2, 2016.
On March 2, 2016, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <standardbankrecord.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On March 2, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 22, 2016 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@standardbankrecord.com. Also on March 2, 2016, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 25, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the 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
Complainant has rights in the STANDARD BANK mark through its registration of the mark in South Africa (Reg. No. 1978/01182, registered September 7, 1979). Respondent’s <standardbankrecord.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the STANDARD BANK mark because it contains the mark as the dominant portion, while adding only the descriptive word “record” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent is not commonly known by the <standardbankrecord.com> domain name as there is no evidence to suggest Respondent is so known. Respondent fails to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the resolving website is used to host links to competitors of Complainant.
Respondent uses the <standardbankrecord.com> domain name in bad faith because the resolving website is used to host links to competitors of Complainant. Respondent registered the <standardbankrecord.com> domain name in bad faith because it did so with constructive or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STANDARD BANK mark.
B. Respondent
The Respondent failed to file a response in this matter. The <standardbankrecord.com> disputed domain name was created on March 25, 2015.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
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."
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.
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(f), 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.”).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. Complainant has registered its mark in South Africa. Respondent arrives at the disputed domain name by merely adding the generic word “record” and the g TLD “.com” to the Complainant’s trademark. This does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the registered trademark.
As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name. There is no information in the record that indicates Respondent has ever been known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information merely lists “Bill Richardson” as the registrant.
As there is no evidence in the record indicating otherwise, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in or to the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that Respondent uses the <standardbankrecord.com> domain name in bad faith because the resolving website is used to disrupt Complainant’s business operations by hosting links to competitors of Complainant. Complainant has provided evidence of these links in its Annexure 13. Respondent presumptively hosts these links for the purpose of receiving monetary compensation.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent engages in bad faith use of the <standardbankrecord.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant maintains that Respondent registered the <standardbankrecord.com> domain name in bad faith because it did so with constructive or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STANDARD BANK mark. Complainant argues that Respondent’s knowledge is demonstrated through having registered a domain name containing Complainant’s entire STANDARD BANK mark, at a time at which Complainant had longstanding rights in the mark as well as engaged in well-known use of the mark.
The Panel finds that Respondent had actual, and not merely constructive, knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STANDARD BANK mark at the time of registration. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the <standardbankrecord.com> domain name in bad faith.
Finally, the Respondent has engaged a privacy service, and in doing so withholds identifying information. The use of a privacy service, without more, cannot reach the threshold of bad faith registration and use. However, the totality of the circumstances which surround a respondent’s engagement of a privacy service may give rise to a finding of bad faith registration and use. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has utilized a privacy shield in a manner which materially adversely affects or obscures the facts of this proceeding. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under 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 <standardbankrecord.com> domain name TRANSFERED from the Respondent to the Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: March 29, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page