Wells Fargo & Company v. raheel imam
Claim Number: FA1807001797012
Complainant is Wells Fargo & Company (“Complainant”), represented by Felicia J. Boyd of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is raheel imam (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <wellsfargohomeinc.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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 17, 2018; the Forum received payment on July 18, 2018.
On July 18, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <wellsfargohomeinc.com> domain name is 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 July 18, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 11, 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@wellsfargohomeinc.com. Also on July 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 response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. Respondent did however send an e-mail to the Forum, see below.
On September 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(s) be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it is a diversified financial services company with $422 billion in assets and 281,000 employees, providing banking, insurance, investments, mortgages, and consumer finance for more than 27 million customers in over 6,000 locations, including services related to home renovation. Complainant uses its WELLS FARGO mark to promote its products and services and established rights in the mark through registration in the United States in 1964. The mark is also registered elsewhere around the world and it is famous.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its WELLS FARGO mark as it merely adds the generic terms “home” and “inc” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its WELLS FARGO mark in any fashion. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name as the WHOIS information of record lists “raheel imam” as the registrant. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to pass off as Complainant or Complainant’s affiliate and offer services that compete with Complainant’s business at the resolving website.
Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent is using the domain name to create confusion with Complainant’s mark for Respondent’s commercial gain by resolving to a website offering competing services. Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the WELLS FARGO mark, due to the fame of the mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. In its e-mail to the Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part (sic): “[Respondent] wished to withdraw from the internet and will stop using the domain name of wells fargo home inc. and not proceed with the complaint filed against him by wells fargo.”
Complainant owns the mark WELLS FARGO and uses it to market a wide range of financial products and services, some related to home renovation.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to at least 1964. The mark is famous.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2017.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The resolving website offers services that compete with those of Complainant.
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 Complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark as it merely adds the generic terms “home” and “inc” and the gTLD “.com.” The addition of generic terms and a gTLD may not sufficiently differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark. See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the <wellsfargohomeinc.com> domain name is confusingly similar, in the sense of the Policy, to Complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its WELLS FARGO mark in any fashion. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name: absent a response, WHOIS information can be used to support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Here, the WHOIS information of record lists “raheel imam” as the registrant. Therefore, the Panel may finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that offers services that compete with those of Complainant. This may not be considered a legitimate Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) use. See Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain name within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage of the complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to a competing commercial site). As such, the Panel finds that Respondent failed to use the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its 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 name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to create confusion with Complainant’s mark for Respondent’s commercial gain by resolving to a website offering competing services. Per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), use of a domain name to attract Internet users and create confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the content therein may evidence bad faith. See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wellsfargohomeinc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: September 12, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page