Citigroup Inc. v. Nimrod Minujin / Aff coop
Claim Number: FA1603001665113
Complainant is Citigroup Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Paul D. McGrady of Winston & Strawn, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Nimrod Minujin / Aff coop (“Respondent”), Spain.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <citinews.co>, registered with GODADDY.COM, INC..
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 11, 2016; the Forum received payment on March 14, 2016.
On March 11, 2016, GODADDY.COM, INC. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <citinews.co> domain name is registered with GODADDY.COM, INC. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GODADDY.COM, INC. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GODADDY.COM, INC. 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 14, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 4, 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@citinews.co. Also on March 14, 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 April 7, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
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 is a leading global bank that provides a broad range of financial services to millions of customers, doing business under the name and mark CITI.
Complainant holds a registration for the CITI service mark, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (as Registry No. 1,181,467, registered December 8, 1981).
Respondent registered the domain name <citinews.co> on November 4, 2015.
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITI mark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name.
Complainant has not granted Respondent any license, permission or other
authorization by which it could own or use any domain name registration which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITI mark.
Respondent has used the domain for a phishing website.
Respondent is not currently using the domain name.
Neither Respondent’s former use of the domain name nor its current use is one in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Respondent has used the domain name to phish for the personal information of Internet users.
Respondent’s prior website used Complainant’s CITI mark, logos, and trade dress, which indicates that Respondent had actual knowledge of the CITI mark at the time of its domain name registration.
Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent has failed to submit a Response in this proceeding which is in compliance with the requirements of the Policy and its attendant Rules. However, in an e-mail exchange with the staff of the Forum, Respondent has recited as follows:
Please send me the contact details of the person i [sic] need to contact to transfer the domain name to his name.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following in order to obtain from a Panel an order that a domain name be transferred:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
ii. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the same domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”
Further, Policy Paragraph 3(a) provides for the transfer of a domain name registration upon the written instructions of the parties to a UDRP proceeding without the need for otherwise required findings and conclusions (see, for example, Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat. Ar. Forum Jan. 13, 2004; see also, to the same effect, Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jun. 24, 2005)).
DECISION
Respondent does not contest the material allegations of the Complaint, and, in particular, it does not contest Complainant’s request that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. Rather, Respondent has expressed in writing a willingness to have the domain name transferred to Complainant. Thus the parties have effectively agreed in writing to a transfer of the domain name from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <citinews.co> domain name be forthwith TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: April 8, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page