Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC and its related entity KCG IP Holdings LLC v. Amir Khan
Claim Number: FA1812001822132
Complainant is Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC and its related entity KCG IP Holdings LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Paul D. McGrady of Winston & Strawn, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Amir Khan (“Respondent”), Malaysia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <citadelcm-hk.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.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 20, 2018; the Forum received payment on December 20, 2018.
On December 21, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <citadelcm-hk.com> domain name (the Domain Name) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 December 21, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of January 10, 2019 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@citadelcm-hk.com. Also on December 21, 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 January 14, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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.
Multiple Complainants
Two parties, Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC and KCG IP Holdings LLC, filed this administrative proceeding as Complainants. The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are Rule 3(a) and the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e). Rule 3(a) states, “Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.” The Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.” Previous panels have interpreted the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:
It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.
In this case, the Complaint states that Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC uses the CITADEL trademarks under license from its “related entity” KCG IP Holdings LLC. Complaint Annex 3 shows that trademark registrations for the CITADEL mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and the trademark authorities for Singapore and Hong Kong are held by KCG IP Holdings LLC. Complainant submitted no documentary evidence of the alleged relationship between the two named Complainants but the entity name of Complainant Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC includes the mark registered to Complainant KCG IP Holdings LLC, and both entities appear before this Panel stating that they are related and that they both have sufficient interest in the Domain Name to warrant lending their names to this proceeding.
Based upon the information in Complaint Annex 3 and the uncontested and undisputed facts recited above, the Panel is satisfied that there is a sufficient nexus among the named Complainants to enable each of them to claim rights in the Domain Name. It is both procedurally efficient and equitable to all parties for a single Complaint to be permitted by all four Complainants, and the Panel will treat them as a single entity for the purposes of this proceeding. All references to “Complainant” in this Decision, even though in the singular, are to all named Complainants.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a large alternative investment institution. Complainant has rights in the CITADEL mark based upon its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,213,943, registered Feb. 27, 2007). Respondent’s Domain Name is confusingly similar as it incorporates Complainant’s entire CITADEL mark, merely adding a hyphen, the generic abbreviation “cm” (short for “consultancy management”), the country code “hk,” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s CITADEL mark and is not commonly known by the Domain Name or any variation of it.
Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith. It attempts to exploit Complainant’s goodwill by impersonating Complainant as part of a fraudulent phishing scheme. Additionally, Respondent used a privacy service to conceal its identity. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge or constructive notice of Complainant’s CITADEL mark prior to registering the Domain Name.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.
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 provides that in order to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name, Complainant must prove each of the following three elements:
(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, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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 as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding:
Complainant registered its CITADEL mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 3,213,943) on February 27, 2007. See, Complaint Annex 3. Registration of a mark with USPTO sufficiently establishes a complainant’s rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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)).
Respondent’s Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark in that it incorporates that mark verbatim, merely adding a common abbreviation (“cm” for consultancy management), a hyphen, the letters “hk” (the generic country code for Hong Kong), and the gTLD “.com.” These changes are not sufficient to distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark or the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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).), Doosan Corporation v. philippe champain, FA 1636675 (Forum Oct. 13, 2015) (finding that geographic designations or terms descriptive of a complainant’s business operations do not remove a domain name from the realm of confusing similarity.), and Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the CITADEL mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
If a complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden of production shifts to respondent to come forward with evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in it. 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”). If a respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant’s prima facie evidence will be sufficient to establish that respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent does come forward with such evidence, the Panel must assess the evidence in its entirety. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) at ¶ 2.1.
Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to respondent of the dispute, respondent has used or has made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name because (i) it is not commonly known by the Domain Name and (ii) Complainant has not authorized or licensed it to use its CITADEL mark. These allegations are supported by competent evidence.
The WHOIS report submitted as Complaint Annex 2 shows that the Domain Name is registered to “Amir Khan.” This name bears no resemblance to the Domain Name. UDRP panels have consistently held that evidence of a registrant name that is materially different from the domain name at issue is competent evidence that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Guardair Corporation v. Pablo Palermo, FA1407001571060 (Forum Aug. 28, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <guardair.com> domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information lists “Pablo Palermo” as registrant of the disputed domain name). The Panel is satisfied that Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant states that it has never licensed or authorized Respondent to use its mark in any way. Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, and it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel. In the absence of evidence that a respondent is authorized to use a complainant’s mark in a domain name or that a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the respondent may be presumed to lack rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name), Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.”).
Complainant has made its prima facie case. On the evidence presented, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
(i) respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name;
(ii) respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct;
(iii) respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to respondent’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of respondent’s web site or location or of a product of service on respondent’s web site or location.
Complaint Annexes 5 and 8 are copies of an email sent to a customer of Complainant purportedly from persons employed by Complainant, and displaying Complainant’s logo at the top of the page and the street address of Complainant’s Hong Kong office at the bottom of the page, but using the email address [employee’s name]@citadelcm-hk.com. The email transmits a trade confirmation form, an account application form, and instructions for where the customer should remit funds for the trade. It requests the customer to sign and return the forms and prompts the customer to remit payment. Respondent thus appears to be using the Domain Name for an email address which he uses to defraud Complainant and its customers of money due from the customers to Complainant. The Policy recognizes that mischief can manifest in many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. Worldcom Exchange, Inc. v. Wei.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D-2004-0955 (January 5, 2005). The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and using a domain name to impersonate a complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme has often been held to constitute bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use), SHUAA Capital psc v. Oba Junkie / shuaa capital psc, FA14009001581255 (Forum Oct. 29, 2014) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the domain name’s e-mail suffix for fraudulent purposes illustrates Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith.”), Monsanto Co. v. Decepticons, FA 101536 (Forum Dec. 18, 2001) (finding that the respondent's use of <monsantos.com> to misrepresent itself as the complainant and to provide misleading information to the public supported a finding of bad faith), Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails supported a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)), Smiths Group plc v. Snooks, FA 1372112 (Forum Mar. 18, 2011) (finding that the respondent’s attempt to impersonate an employee of the complainant was evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
Finally, it is evident from Complainant’s well-known presence in the investment management services industry around the world, from the close similarity between Complainant’s mark and Respondent’s Domain Name, and from Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark and Hong Kong street address in its emails, that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark in October 2018 when it registered the Domain Name. See, Complaint Annexes 2 and 7 for registration date. Respondent obviously intended to use Complainant’s mark in connection with its fraudulent impersonation scheme and selected the Domain Name with that purpose in mind. In light of the open ended, non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b), actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registering an identical or confusingly similar domain name has often been held to be evidence of bad faith registration and use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name), Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (“Complainant contends Respondent’s appropriation of Complainant’s trademark was a clear intent to trade upon Complainant’s reputation and goodwill in order to confuse Internet users. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark prior to registration and this constitutes bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of 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 <citadelcm-hk.com> Domain Name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist
January 16, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page