Capital One Financial Corp. v. Domain Administrator / China Capital Investments Limited
Claim Number: FA1709001751134
Complainant is Capital One Financial Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by John Gary Maynard, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / China Capital Investments Limited (“Respondent”), Hong Kong.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <getmyoffercapitalone.com> and <getmyofferatcapitalone.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 28, 2017; the Forum received payment on September 28, 2017.
On September 28, 2017, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <getmyoffercapitalone.com> and <getmyofferatcapitalone.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 September 28, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 18, 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@getmyoffercapitalone.com, postmaster@getmyofferatcapitalone.com. Also on September 28, 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 October 20, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant registered the CAPITAL ONE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 3,989,909, registered July 5, 2011). Respondent’s <getmyoffercapitalone.com> and <getmyofferatcapitalone.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as each appends the generic phrases “get my offer” and “get my offer at,” as well as the “.com” generic top-level-domain (“gTLD”) to Complainant’s’ wholly incorporated mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <getmyoffercapitalone.com> and <getmyofferatcapitalone.com> domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark. Respondent also does not use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent inactively holds the domain names, with each hosting a “Coming Soon!” message on their respective resolving pages.
Respondent registered and uses the <getmyoffercapitalone.com> and <getmyofferatcapitalone.com> domain names in bad faith. Respondent fails to make demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain names.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Capital One Financial Corp., has rights in the CAPITAL ONE mark through registration with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 3,989,909, registered July 5, 2011). Respondent’s <getmyoffercapitalone.com> and <getmyofferatcapitalone.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Respondent, Domain Administrator / China Capital Investments Limited, registered <getmyofferatcapitalone.com> on January 10, 2017 and registered <getmyoffercapitalone.com> on January 30, 2017.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <getmyoffercapitalone.com> and <getmyofferatcapitalone.com> domain names. Respondent inactively holds the domain names, with each hosting a “Coming Soon!” message on their respective resolving pages.
Respondent registered and uses the <getmyoffercapitalone.com> and <getmyofferatcapitalone.com> domain names 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 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.”).
Complainant has rights in the CAPITAL ONE mark based upon registration with the USPTO. See T-Mobile USA, Inc. dba MetroPCS v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA 1627542 (Forum Aug. 9, 2015) (finding that Complainant has rights in the METROPCS mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.).
Respondent’s <getmyoffercapitalone.com> and <getmyofferatcapitalone.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAPITAL ONE mark as each appends the generic phrases “get my offer” and “get my offer at,” as well as the “.com” gTLD, to Complainant’s’ wholly incorporated mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <getmyoffercapitalone.com> and <getmyofferatcapitalone.com> domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the domain names. The WHOIS identifies “Domain Administrator / China Capital Investments Limited” as the registrant of both domain names. See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (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).
Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The domain names redirect users to websites that lack any content. See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant’s mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website.”). Respondent has failed to use the disputed domain names since registering them more than seven months ago.
Respondent inactively holds the domain names, as Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names for any purpose. Inactively holding confusingly similar domain names shows bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA1503001608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) (“Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <getmyoffercapitalone.com> and <getmyofferatcapitalone.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: November 3, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page