The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Richard Preston
Claim Number: FA1708001744933
Complainant is The Toronto-Dominion Bank (“Complainant”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden. Respondent is Richard Preston (“Respondent”), Great Britain.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <tdbank-login.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 16, 2017; the Forum received payment on August 16, 2017.
On August 18, 2017, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <tdbank-login.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 August 21, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 11, 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@tdbank-login.com. Also on August 21, 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 September 13, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it provides banking and financial services throughout North America. It is the second largest bank in Canada by market capitalization and deposits, and the sixth largest bank in North America. The bank was created in 1955 through the merger of the Bank of Toronto and The Dominion Bank, which were founded in 1855 and 1869, respectively. Complainant has over 85,000 employees and over 22 million clients worldwide. In Canada, the retail bank operates as TD Canada Trust and serves more than 12 million customers at over 1,100 branches. In the United States, the company operates as TD Bank (the initials are used officially for all U.S. operations). TD Bank now serves more than 8 million customers with a network of more than 1,300 branches, primarily located in the eastern United States. TD also ranks among the world’s leading online financial services firms. Complainant is ranked number 71 on the 2013 Forbes Global 2000 listing. Brand Finance® Brand Directory, which ranks the world’s most valuable brands, ranks TD as number 89 on its 2013 Global 500 list. In conjunction with its business, Complainant uses the TD and TD BANK marks to provide and market products and services. Complainant has rights in the TD BANK mark based upon registration in the United States in 2010. The mark is also registered in other countries around the world.
According to Complainant, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its TD BANK mark as it contains the mark in its entirety, less the space, merely adding the descriptive term “login” separated by a hyphen, and adding the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Complainant alleges that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not granted Respondent permission or license to use the TD BANK mark for any purpose. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Rather, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent is inactively holding the disputed domain name. Respondent has employed a privacy service to hide its identity. Respondent has failed to respond to cease-and-desist letters. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TD and TD BANK marks. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark TD BANK and uses it to market banking and financial services in several countries.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to at least 2010.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2016.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks.
The disputed domain name is not being used.
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 (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 disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the TD BANK mark as it contains the mark in its entirety (minus the space) and adds the descriptive term “login”—separated by a hyphen—and the gTLD “.com.” Panels have consistently found that slight differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark or removal of a space, are irrelevant and do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein. See Traditional Medicinals, Inc. v. Flippa Chick, FA1006001328702 (ForumJuly 15, 2010) (“Respondent’s disputed domain name contains Complainant’s SMOOTH MOVE mark in its entirety after removing the space separating the terms of the mark, adds the descriptive terms “herbal tea” and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that the addition of descriptive terms creates a confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark.”) Similarly, the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in determining whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar, in the sense of the Policy, to Complainant’s TD BANK mark.
Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the TD BANK mark in any way. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark.). The WHOIS information of record identifies registrant as “Richard Preston.” Additionally, lack of evidence in the record to indicate that the respondent has been authorized to register a domain name using a complainant’s mark supports a finding that respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). The Panel therefore finds under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Respondent has made no effort to use the disputed domain name since it was registered. When a respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with an active website, such a respondent is not able to avail itself of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Kohler Co. v xi long chen, FA 1737910 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (”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 <kohler-corporation.com> resolves to an inactive webpage displaying the message “website coming soon!”). Consequently, the Panel may finds that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use if the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
For the reasons given above, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for his use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain names.
The disputed domain name is not being used. According to paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): “From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.”
In the present case, Respondent registered the disputed domain name using a privacy service. Complainant’s mark is well known in connection with banking services. It is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy, see Morgan Stanley v. TONY / shentony, FA 1637186 (Forum Oct. 10, 2015) (“Respondent registered the disputed domain name [MORGANSTANLEY.ONLINE] in bad faith because . . . it is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy”); see also Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. European Travel Network, D2000-0641 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000) (where selection of disputed domain name is so obviously connected to complainant’s well-known trademark, use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton Int’l IP, LLC, Westin Hotel Mgmt., L.P. v. Jingjing Tang, D2014-1040 (WIPO Aug. 19, 2014) (“The Panel finds that the [WESTIN] Marks are not such that could legitimately be adopted by traders other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith”).
There has been no response to the Complaint. Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that, in this particular case, a finding of bad faith use can be inferred even though the disputed domain name is not being actively used. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <tdbank-login.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: September 13, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page