Citigroup Inc. v. Juan Perez
Claim Number: FA1801001767382
Complainant is Citigroup Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James L. Vana of Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is Juan Perez (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <bitcoinciti.org> and <citibitcoin.org>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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 January 17, 2018; the Forum received payment on January 17, 2018.
On January 18, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bitcoinciti.org> and <citibitcoin.org> domain name 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 January 18, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 7, 2018 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@bitcoinciti.org, postmaster@citibitcoin.org. Also on January 18, 2018, 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 formal response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. Respondent did however send two e-mails to the Forum, see below.
On February 12, 2018, 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 is an American multinational banking and financial services and was founded as City Bank of New York in 1812. Complainant registered its CITI mark in the United States in 1981.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because each merely adds the term “bitcoin” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.org” to the fully incorporated mark.
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark in any fashion. Respondent is not commonly known by either of the disputed domain names as the WHOIS information of record lists “Juan Perez” as the registrant. Respondent is not using either of the domain names in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the domain names do not resolve to active websites.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith. Respondent established a pattern of bad faith domain name registrations as evidenced by Respondent’s registration of multiple domain names in the present case and other domain names that infringe on third parties’ rights. Additionally, Respondent registered the domain name with full knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CITI mark. Finally, Respondent failed to actively use the domain names.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. However, in his e-mails to the Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part: “I am willing to transfer the domains over to Citigroup as soon as possible, none of the domains are in use anyways”; and “Attached to this email are the 3 domains and the authorization codes to transfer them. I have spoken with staff at GoDaddy.com and they have told me that this is all you will need to make the transfer happen. You are now in control of the domain transfer with the authorization codes that have been provided in this email.”
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.
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 the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.
See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <bitcoinciti.org> and <citibitcoin.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: February 12, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page