Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC v Jeffrey Alexander
Claim Number: FA1804001782767
Complainant is Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Paul D. McGrady of Winston & Strawn, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Jeffrey Alexander (“Respondent”), New Jersey, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <citadelsecurities.co>, registered with Key-Systems GmbH.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 20, 2018; the Forum received payment on April 23, 2018.
On April 23, 2018, Key-Systems GmbH confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <citadelsecurities.co> domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Key-Systems GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems GmbH 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 April 25, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 15, 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@citadelsecurities.co. Also on April 25, 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 response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 18, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <citadelsecurities.co> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITADEL SECURITIES mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <citadelsecurities.co> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <citadelsecurities.co> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is an investment institution that holds a registration for the CITADEL SECURITIES mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,523,732, registered May 6, 2014).
Respondent registered the <citadelsecurities.co> domain name on September 16, 2017, and fails to make active use of the domain name.
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
Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently demonstrated rights in the
CITADEL SECURITIES mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark
registration with the USPTO. See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer,
FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017)
("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy
¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark
authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).”).
Respondent’s <citadelsecurities.co> domain name incorporates Complainant’s CITADEL SECURITIES mark and merely adds a ccTLD to the mark and removes the space. These changes are insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See CloudFlare, Inc. v. [Registrant], FA 1624251 (Forum Aug. 1, 2015) (holding, “The inclusion of a ccTLD does not alleviate the similarity between a mark and a disputed domain name as per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Research Now Group, Inc. v. Pan Jing, FA 1735345 (Forum July 14, 2017) (“The … elimination of spacing [is] considered irrelevant when distinguishing between a mark and a domain name.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <citadelsecurities.co> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITADEL SECURITIES mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <citadelsecurities.co> domain name and Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record). Complainant provides relevant WHOIS information, which identifies the registrant as “Jeffrey Alexander.” Complainant states that Respondent is not permitted, licensed, or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s CITADEL SECURITIES mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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).
Complainant also contends that Respondent is not using the <citadelsecurities.co> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent fails to make active use of the disputed domain name. Inactive holding of a disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Activision Blizzard, Inc. / Activision Publishing, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Cimpress Schweiz GmbH, FA 1737429 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (“Complainant insists that Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name. When Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with an active website, the Panel may find that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services… 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 provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name, which resolves to a blank website with only an error message. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant demonstrates that Respondent is not making and active use of the <citadelsecurities.co> domain name, which incorporates Complainant’s entire mark. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s failure to make active use of the disputed domain name is evidence of 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 finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <citadelsecurities.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: May 21, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page