The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Liza Hisugan
Claim Number: FA1710001752027
Complainant is The Toronto-Dominion Bank (“Complainant”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden. Respondent is Liza Hisugan (“Respondent”), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <tdcanadatrusf.com>, registered with 1&1 Internet SE.
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.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 4, 2017; the Forum received payment on October 4, 2017.
On October 6, 2017, 1&1 Internet SE confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <tdcanadatrusf.com> domain name is registered with 1&1 Internet SE and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 1&1 Internet SE has verified that Respondent is bound by the 1&1 Internet SE 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 October 11, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 31, 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@tdcanadatrusf.com. Also on October 11, 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 November 1, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson, 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, The Toronto-Dominion Bank, uses the TD and CANADA TRUST marks to provide, as well as market, various types of banking and financial products and services. Complainant has rights in the marks based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,788,055, registered May 11, 2010). Respondent’s <tdcanadatrusf.com> is identical or confusingly similar as it contains Complainant’s TD and CANADA TRUST marks in their entirety, eliminating the space, misspelling the word “trust,” and adding the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <tdcanadatrusf.com> 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 and CANADA TRUST marks 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 <tdcanadatrusf.com> domain name currently resolves to an inactive website.
Respondent has registered and used the <tdcanadatrusf.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain through confusion of the source of the disputed domain name. 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 CANADA TRUST marks.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is the Toronto-Dominion Bank, of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Complainant is the owner of domestic and international registrations for the marks TD, TD BANK, CANADA TRUST and numerous related marks constituting the family of TD Bank marks. Complainant has continuously used its marks, in connection with its provision of financial and business goods and services, since at least as early as 1955. Complainant also owns and operates numerous websites incorporating its marks including <td.com> and <tdcanadatrust.com>.
Respondent is Liza Hisugan, of Alberta, Canada. Respondent’s registrar’s address is listed as Karlsruhe, Germany. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name was created on or about June 13, 2017.
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 claims rights in the TD and CANADA TRUST marks based upon its registration with the USPTO (Reg. No. 3,788,055, registered May 11, 2010). Registration with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The Panel here finds that Complainant has rights in the TD and CANADA TRUST marks per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant asserts that <tdcanadatrusf.com> is confusingly similar to the TD and CANADA TRUST marks as it contains the mark in its entirety, eliminating the space, misspelling the word “trust,” and adding the gTLD “.com.” Past panels have found that slight differences between domain names and registered marks, such as misspelling of a mark or removal of a space, are irrelevant and do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein. See T Bank of America Corporation v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1629452 (Forum Aug. 18, 2015) (finding that the <blankofamerica.com> domain name contains the entire BANK OF AMERICA mark and merely adds the gTLD ‘.com’ and the letter ‘l’ to create a common misspelling of the word ‘bank.’). 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). The Panel here finds that <tdcanadatrusf.com> does not contain changes that sufficiently distinguish it from the TD and CANADA TRUST marks.
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has proven this element.
The Panel recognizes that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that 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 does have 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). Complainant has met this burden.
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <tdcanadatrusf.com> as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the TD and CANADA TRUST marks 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 “Liza Hisugan.” 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 here finds that per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends that Respondent has made no effort to use <tdcanadatrusf.com> since it was registered. When a respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with an active website, such a respondent may not be 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!”). Complainant provides evidence that Respondent’s domain name resolves to an inactive website. The Panel here finds that <tdcanadatrusf.com> is inactively used and as such is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
As Respondent has not provided a response to this action, Respondent has failed to meet its burden regarding proof of any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain.
Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant argues that Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name evinces bad faith. Complainant asserts that Respondent’s disputed domain resolves to a page stating that the website “has been taken down the email address of the domain holder has not been verified”. Prior panels have held that inactive uses of domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark are considered bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Dermtek Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sang Im / Private Registration, FA1310001522801 (Forum Nov. 19, 2013) (holding that because the respondent’s website contained no content related to the domain name and instead generated the error message “Error 400- Bad Request,” the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). The Panel here finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to the Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant argues that Respondent is attempting to confuse consumers for commercial gain. Intent to cause confusion, mistake and deception by means of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶4 (b)(iv). See Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. 2002) ("While an intent to confuse consumers is not required for a finding of trademark infringement, intent to deceive is strong evidence of a likelihood of confusion."); see also Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain). Moreover, Complainant asserts that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting. “Respondents who capitalize on common typing errors engage in bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).” Adorama, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA1503001610020 (Forum May 1, 2015).
Given the evidence provided, the Panel agrees with Complainant and finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith.
Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark. Complainant asserts that is the second largest bank in Canada and sixth largest bank in North America and that its marks are famous to customers around the world. Actual knowledge may be proven through a totality of circumstances surrounding the registration of the disputed domain name. See Google Inc. v. Ahmed Humood, FA1411001591796 (Forum Jan. 7, 2015) (“This Panel makes that inference; Respondent has actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark at the time of domain name registration based on the fame of Complainant’s GOOGLE mark and Respondent’s use of one of the disputed domain names to detail Internet domain name registration and maintenance services related to an in competition with Complainant.) The Panel here finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TD and TD BANK marks when it registered <tdcanadatrusf.com>, thereby supporting a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant has proven this element.
DECISION
As Complainant has established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s requested relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <tdcanadatrusf.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: November 8, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page