Citigroup Inc. v. 刘军
Claim Number: FA1702001716803
Complainant is Citigroup Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Brian J. Winterfeldt of Mayer Brown LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is 刘军 (“Respondent”), People’s Republic of China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <citibank.xin>, registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn).
The undersigned certifies he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 10, 2017; the Forum received payment on February 10, 2017.
On February 15, 2017, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <citibank.xin> domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) 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 February 15, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 7, 2017 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@citibank.xin. Also on February 15, 2017, 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 17, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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 the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
CITIBANK (China Reg. No. 11377293) in International Class 41 used in connection with “providing finance educational projects for teenagers on finance and occupation awareness training; educational services and projects in the fields of finance and occupation awareness; educational services; practical training (demonstration); vocational guidance (education or training consultancy); providing online educational information (mainly on occupation development, promotion and leadership training); arranging and conducting of conferences; lending libraries; publication of books; videotape distribution; providing online electronic publications (non-downloadable) with information in the fields of occupation development, promotion and leadership training; entertainment ; rental of cinematographic plastic films; gymnastics training; rental of toys; rental of gaming equipments; animal training; providing modelling services for artists; operations of lotteries.” Date of registration: April 7, 2014.
CITIBANK (China Reg. No. 4307630) in International Class 36 used in connection with “insurance of real estate / properties; insurance; accident insurance; life insurance; brokerage for negotiable securities; negotiable securities trading services; providing secured financial transaction services; pension management; financial services; public funds; debt collection agencies; credit cooperatives; loan with installments; mortgage banking; loan card services; credit card services; banking; financial planning (financial services); financial evaluation; brokerage for futures ; stock exchange transaction information; financial information; financial analysis; financial consultancy; deposit of valuable items; currency exchange; issuance of travelers' checks; electronic transfer of funds; verification of notes (notes receivable); financing of funds by installments.” Date of registration: May 7, 2008.
CITIBANK (China Reg. No. 3431902) (Stylized and Design) in International Class 16 used in connection with “Paper; Filtering paper; Table napkins made of paper; Cardboard; Cardboard products; Printed publication relating to finance, banking, credit cards, investment and insurance; Printed matter relating to finance, banking, credit cards, investment and insurance; Photographs; Paper or plastic bags for packaging use (envelopes, pouches); Bookbinding materials; Office requisites, other than furniture; Ink; Stamps (seals); Pens; Glue for stationery or household use; Rulers for painting / drawing; Painting/drawing materials; Printing types; Teaching materials (other than apparatus); Materials for models; Rosaries / chaplets.” Date of registration: November 21, 2004.
CITIBANK (China Reg. No. 3431900) (Stylized and Design) in International Class 36 used in connection with “Insurance of real estate / properties; Insurance; Accident insurance; Life insurance; Loan and financial services for business and individual users; Financial planning and consultancy; Securities brokerage / stocks and bonds brokerage; Financial services; Credit card services; Financing of funds by installments; Financial loans; Capital investments; Public funds; Debt collection agencies; Credit cooperatives; Loan with installments; Mortgage banking; Loan card services; Financial evaluation; Brokerage for futures; Stock exchange transaction information; Financial information; Financial analysis; Financial consultancy; Deposits of valuable items; Currency exchange; Issuance of travellers' cheques; Electronic transfer of funds; Verification of notes (notes receivable); Banking; Providing secured financial transaction services; Provision of financial services and financial information via remote computer and global computer network; Pension management; Negotiable securities trading services; Investment advice and consultancy; Appraisal of artworks; Leasing of real estate; Real estate management; Real estate valuation; Real estate agencies; Brokerage; Customs brokerage; Guarantee; Charitable fund raising; Trusteeship; Factoring of assets; Trusteeship management; Pawn brokerage.” Date of registration: November 14, 2004.
CITIBANK (China Reg. No. 3431901) (Stylized and Design) in International Class 35 used in connection with “About credit card promotion commercial advertising; marketing of credit cards (for others); Advertising; Advertising (to provide incentive schemes to promote credit card); Professional business consultancy; Business information; Organization of commercial or advertising exhibitions; Organization of commercial or advertising fairs; Business consulting; Business management; Business research; Statistics; Market research; Import and export agency; Promotion (for others); Personnel management consultancy; Commercial establishments; Relocation; Computer document management; Computer database information systematization; Word processing; Accounting; Vending machine rental.” Date of registration: August 14, 2004.
CITIBANK (China Reg. No. 3431903) (Stylized and Design) in International Class 9 used in connection with “Computer software (recorded) relating to finance, banking, credit card, investment and insurance services; Computer hardware relating to finance, banking, credit card, investment and insurance services; Electronic schedules; Facsimile machines; Scales; Measuring tools; Electronic bulletin boards; Telephones; Game consoles used with television; Cameras (photography); Vehicle driving and controlling simulators; Optical apparatus and instruments; Electrical wires; Integrated circuit boards; Lightning rods/conductors; Electroplating equipments; Fire extinguishing equipments; Electric arc welding equipment; Radiology equipments for industrial purposes; Personal accident prevention devices; Electronic security device; Eyeglasses; Batteries; Cinematographic plastic films (exposed); Decorative magnets; Electronic door opener.” Date of registration: July 14, 2004.
CITIBANK (China Reg. No. 180123) (Stylized) in International Class 16 used in connection with “Brochures relating to financial services; Promotional materials and other publications; Flyers.” Date of registration: July 5, 1983.
FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS
This Complaint is based on the following factual and legal grounds: UDRP Rule 3(b)(ix).
1. Complainant is Citigroup Inc. (Citigroup), a United States corporation with its global headquarters in New York, New York.
2. According to the WHOIS Database, the Respondent in this administrative proceeding is 刘军 whose listed address is 建国路, 徐州市 , 江苏, 221000, CN.
3. This dispute is properly within the scope of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (hereinafter referred to as “UDRP”, or “the Policy”) and the Administrative Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute. The Domain Name Registration Agreement (the “Registration Agreement”), pursuant to which the Disputed Domain Name were registered, incorporates the Policy.
4. In addition, in accordance with the Policy, Paragraph 4(a), Respondent is required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding because:
(a) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(b) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and
(c) The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
5. Complainant notes that the Registration Agreement for the Disputed Domain Name is provided in Chinese. The forum generally requires that a UDRP proceeding be conducted in the language of the registration agreement for the subject domain names. However, Complainant requests that this proceeding, including the Panel’s determination, be conducted in English for the following reasons: (i) Respondent has targeted the English-language trademark reflected in the Disputed Domain Name; (ii) Respondent has targeted a TLD rendered in ASCII characters as reflected in the Disputed Domain Name; (iii) Respondent also owns other domain names reflecting English-language words at the Second Level and Top Level.
6. This Complaint is based upon Complainant’s trademark/service marks, CITIBANK, which have been used by Complainant in the People’s Republic of China since at least as early as 1983; however, Complainant owns numerous other registrations for the trademark/service marks CITIBANK in jurisdictions around the world (collectively, the “CITIBANK Marks”).
7. In addition, the domain names CITIBANK.COM and CITIBANK.CN, among numerous others, are currently registered to Complainant either in Complainant’s name or through its wholly-owned subsidiary Citibank, N.A. (collectively the “CITIBANK Domain Names”). Some of these domain names have been used in Complainant’s business as early as 1998, and have been continuously used and associated with Complainant’s business since that time. CITIBANK.COM redirects Internet users to Complainant’s website located at ONLINE.CITI.COM, while CITIBANK.CN redirects Internet users to Complainant’s Chinese-language website, which contains extensive usage of Complainant’s famous CITIBANK trademarks.
8. Complainant has promoted the CITIBANK Marks globally, and the CITIBANK Marks have widespread recognition in the People’s Republic of China and worldwide. In 2017, BrandFinance Global Banking 500 ranked CITIBANK the 8th most valuable banking brand, and in 2016 BrandZ Top 100 Most Valuable Global brands ranked CITIBANK the 56th most valuable brand. In addition, the CITIBANK Marks are frequently mentioned in top Chinese periodicals and other news sources.
9. Complainant is an American multinational banking and financial services corporation headquartered in New York, New York, first founded as City Bank of New York in 1812. Citigroup was formed from one of the world’s largest mergers in history by combining the banking giant Citicorp and financial conglomerate Travelers Group in October 1998. As of 2014, Citigroup was the fourteenth largest bank holding company in the world by assets and the seventh largest by market capitalization. Complainant first opened an office in China on May 15, 1902 and was one of the first international banks to incorporate locally in mainland China. Complainant’s locally incorporated entity is known as Citibank (China) Co Ltd, which is wholly owned by Citibank N.A. Today Complainant is a leading international bank in China, and has 55 branches and sub-branches in thirteen cities across China.
10. As a result of the foregoing, Complainant has developed extremely valuable goodwill and an outstanding reputation in the CITIBANK Marks and the CITIBANK Domain Names. The CITIBANK Marks are famous and are indications of high quality and origin associated exclusively with Complainant.
11. Complainant was previously the registrant of the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant was awarded the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name in a UDRP decision dated March 31, 2016.
12. Complainant’s registration in the Disputed Domain Name lapsed as a result of the registrar’s failure to timely effectuate a transfer of the domains and subsequent failure to timely notify Complainant of their pending expiration as required by ICANN. The Disputed Domain Name had originally been registered by a Chinese individual using a Chinese registrar, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (the “Outgoing Registrar”). Complainant intended to transfer the Disputed Domain Name to its preferred registrar (the “Incoming Registrar”) immediately after securing it and before taking further action. Between the time that the Disputed Domain Name was finally recovered in April of 2016 and September 2016, Complainant exchanged a series of emails with the Outgoing Registrar, which either failed to respond, mistranslated its responses or sent responses to incorrect email addresses. As the registrations in the Disputed Domain Name approached their expiration date, the Outgoing Registrar also failed to issue either the contractually mandatory one-month or one-week notices required in its agreement with ICANN. See ICANN Expired Registration Recovery Policy, Section 2.1.1 (Feb. 28, 2013), available at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/errp-2013-02-28-en. Furthermore, it neither issued notices that the domain name had entered its auto-renew period nor its contractually mandated notices that the registration had entered its redemption grace period.
13. As noted above, on December 12, 2016, Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with the Outgoing Registrar.
14. The Disputed Domain Name has never resolved to any active website.
15. On January 30, 2017, Complainant’s counsel sent correspondence to Respondent via Electronic Mail, demanding that Respondent cease and desist use of the Disputed Domain Name and transfer the registration for the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant. Complainant’s counsel transmitted this information to the e-mail address listed in the WHOIS database as of January 30, 2017.
16. Respondent owns a portfolio of numerous other domain names, some of which also appear to match or be confusingly similar to third party trademarks, including BRAUN.XIN and COMVITA.XIN.
17. Respondent’s second level domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s CITIBANK Mark and is identical to the CITIBANK Marks.
18. Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant nor is it authorized to use Complainant’s CITIBANK Marks or Complainant’s CITIBANK Domain Names.
19. Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, having opportunistically registered the Disputed Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CITIBANK Marks, and having continuously passively held the Disputed Domain Name.
20. Under Section 4(a) of the Policy, a domain name registration may be cancelled or transferred upon a showing that:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
[a.] The <citibank.xin> Domain Name Is Identical Or Confusingly Similar To The CITIBANK Marks In Which Complainant Has Well-Established Rights. UDRP Rule 3(b)(ix)(1); Policy ¶4(a)(i).
21. The Disputed Domain Name consists of the word “CITIBANK,” which is identical to Complainant’s well-established trademarks and domain names.4 The only difference between Complainant’s marks and the Disputed Domain Name is the addition of a generic top level domain extension—“.XIN.”
22. It is well-established that the use of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish confusing similarity and that the addition of a top level domain extension to an identical mark is insufficient to escape a finding of such similarity.5 In this case, the Respondent’s second level domain name is identical to the CITIBANK Marks, thereby creating confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademarks. As prior panel determinations demonstrate, this confusion is not obviated by the addition of generic top level domain extension such as “.XIN.”
23. Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark in its entirety is therefore sufficient to find confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and Complainant’s CITIBANK Marks.
[b.] Respondent Has No Rights Or Legitimate Interest In Respect Of The <citibank.xin> Domain Name. UDRP Rule 3(b)(ix)(2); Policy ¶4(a)(ii); UDRP ¶4(c).
24. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent has never been authorized by Complainant to use the CITIBANK Marks in any manner, much less as part of the Disputed Domain Name.
25. Respondent has no legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name given that the Disputed Domain Name was registered well after Complainant had registered its CITIBANK Marks and had established extensive goodwill.
26. The Disputed Domain Name does not reflect Respondent’s common name, 刘军 [Liu Jun].
27. In addition, the Disputed Domain Name has never resolved to any active website. The Disputed Domain Name has therefore never provided any substantive content of its own, is therefore not a bona fide offering of goods and services within the meaning of the UDRP, and therefore cannot confer upon Respondent any legitimate interest in the domain name by virtue of its existence.
28. Finally, it is well-established that, where a complainant contends arespondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to come forward with proof to the contrary. Absent a showing to the contrary by the respondent, the complainant has therefore established that respondent has no legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
[c.] The <citibank.xin> Domain Name Has Been Registered And Used In Bad Faith. UDRP Rule 3(b)(ix)(3); Policy ¶4(a)(iii); Policy ¶4(b).
29. The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith. Under Section 4(b) of the Policy, any of the following non-exhaustive circumstances shall be evidence of the use and registration of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out- of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that it has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the registrant has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the registrant’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
30. First, Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith according to Section 4(b)(ii) of the Policy. Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name has prevented Complainant from reflecting its CITIBANK trademark in the .XIN new gTLD. Respondent has deliberately engaged in a pattern of such conduct, having registered other domain names matching or confusingly similar to third party trademarks.
31. In addition, Complainant’s rights in the CITIBANK Marks are so well established, and its CITIBANK brand has achieved a level of recognition and fame such that Respondent has no colorable argument that he is unaware of the CITIBANK brand. The Disputed Domain Name is only valuable because of its association with the CITIBANK brand. In this context, Respondent’s passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name evidences bad faith registration and use.
32. Respondent was on notice of Complainant’s CITIBANK Marks prior to registering the Disputed Domain Name, given the global fame of Complainant’s CITIBANK Marks.
33. Respondent’s opportunistic registration of the Disputed Domain Name with knowledge of Complainants trademark rights in the CITIBANK Marks soon after the registration lapsed is further evidence of bad faith.
34. Finally, Respondent’s failure to respond to Complainant’s cease and desist letter prior to the filing of this Complaint further evidences Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name.14
35. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence is that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith in accordance with Section 4(b) of the Policy.
36. For the reasons described above, the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITIBANK Marks, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name, and the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith, in violation of Policy ¶(4)(a).
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Panel Note: Supported Language Request
Complainant requests this administrative proceeding proceed in the English language pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a) even in light of the Chinese language Registration Agreement. It is established practice to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties. Factors which previous panels have seen as particularly compelling are:
See The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, D2009-0610 (WIPO July 1, 2009) (panel exercising discretion in deciding that the language of the proceedings advance in English, contrary to the Registration Agreement, based on evidence that respondent has command of the language).
The Panel may weigh the relative time and expense in enforcing the Chinese language agreement, which would result in prejudice toward either party. See Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006) (deciding that the proceeding should be in English, stating, “It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.”). In this case, Respondent used a mark in English. Respondent has been involved in other UDRP proceedings that were conducted in English. Some of the contact WHOIS information is in English.
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds sufficient persuasive evidence has been presented by Complainant to suggest Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. After considering the circumstances of the present case, the Panel decides the proceeding should be in English.
(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.
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 Complainant prove the following three elements to obtain an order transferring or cancelling a domain name:
(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 (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.”).
Complainant provides global financial goods and services. Complainant uses the CITIBANK mark in conjunction with its business. Complainant registered the CITIBANK mark with China State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) (e.g. Reg. No. 180123, registered July 5, 1983). Registration with the SAIC (or any other governmental authority for that matter) suffices to demonstrate rights in a mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Xiaomi Inc. v. Tanapong Kotipan / Omega Gadget, FA 1621199 (Forum July 10, 2015) (holding, “Registration with the SAIC is sufficient to establish rights in a trademark.”). Complainant has established sufficient rights in the CITIBANK mark.
Complainant claims Respondent’s <citibank.xin> is identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITIBANK mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the “.xin” gTLD. A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Forum May 27, 2003). The <citibank.xin> domain name is identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITIBANK mark.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) satisfied.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii). Then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it has rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (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 UDRP ¶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 AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant claims Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <citibank.xin>. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information regarding the disputed domain name lists “刘军.” as registrant of record, which bears no obvious relationship to the disputed domain name. Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006). Therefore, because “nothing in [Respondent’s] WHOIS information implies that [Respondent] is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name,” this Panel holds Respondent is not commonly known by <citibank.xin>. Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Forum Feb. 10, 2003).
Complainant claims Respondent is not authorized to use the CITIBANK mark in any regard, nor is Respondent affiliated with Complainant. Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain. Respondent’s <citibank.xin> resolves to an inactive website displaying the message “This site can’t be reached.” This means the domain name is not being used to host a web site. Respondent has not claimed to be making another use of the domain name (such as an email server or a portal of some kind). “Respondent’s failure to associate content with its disputed domain name evinces a lack of rights and legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(ii).” U.S. News & World Report, Inc. v. Zhongqi, FA 917070 (Forum Apr. 9, 2007). Respondent’s failure to use the disputed domain name demonstrates Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii). Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Complainant claims Respondent registered and is using <citibank.xin> in bad faith. The <citibank.xin> domain name resolves to an inactive website and has no content. When Respondent fails to make an active use of the disputed domain name, bad faith registration and use can reasonably be inferred. Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Forum Aug. 30, 2000). Respondent engaged in opportunistic bad faith by registering the <citibank.xin> domain soon after Complainant’s registration for the domain lapsed. Respondents engage in opportunistic bad faith pursuant to policy ¶4(a)(iii) when they register a disputed domain name immediately after the complainant mistakenly allowed it to expire. Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Taro Yamada / Personal, FA1409001582613 (Forum Nov. 25, 2014). “Where the domain name registration was previously held, developed and used by Complainant, opportunistic registration of the domain name by another party indicates bad faith, absent any justification that illustrates legitimate use.” Aurbach v. Saronski, FA 155133 (Forum May 29, 2003). No such justification has been made here.
Complainant claims Respondent appears to have engaged in a pattern of bad faith registrations evidenced by multiple registrations infringing on the rights of other third party marks. While other panels have found a bad faith pattern of conduct where a respondent registered many domain names unrelated to its business which infringe on famous marks and websites, this Panel reads Policy ¶4(b)(ii) a little more strictly. That policy provides “[Respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [Respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct.” Complainant has been able to reflect its mark in a domain name.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered the <citibank.xin> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Monday, March 27, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page