Signature Bank v. Bambo jSS
Claim Number: FA2006001898557
PARTIES
Complainant is Signature Bank ("Complainant"), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden. Respondent is Bambo jSS ("Respondent"), New Jersey, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <signatureny.us>, registered with Google 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 1, 2020; the Forum received payment on June 1, 2020.
On June 3, 2020, Google LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <signatureny.us> domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U.S. Department of Commerce's usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On June 3, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 23, 2020 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@signatureny.us. Also on June 3, 2020, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 June 26, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 usTLD 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 usTLD Policy, usTLD 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 is one of the 40 largest banks in the United States based upon deposits. Complainant is based in New York and has 31 private client offices in the New York metropolitan area and one in San Francisco. Complainant has used the SIGNATURE BANK mark for its services since it was founded in 2001, and owns two United States trademark registrations for the mark, both in standard character form. Complainant uses the domain name <signatureny.com> for its primary website.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <signatureny.us> in March 2020. It does not resolve to a website, and Respondent does not appear to be making any active use of it. Complainant states that Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant in any way, has not been given permission to use Complainant's mark, and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant states further that Respondent has ignored Complainant's attempts at communication.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <signatureny.us> is confusingly similar to its SIGNATURE BANK mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith.
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 or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP principles as applicable in rendering its decision.
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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <signatureny.us> incorporates the distinctive portion of Complainant's registered SIGNATURE BANK trademark, adding the geographic abbreviation "NY," which corresponds to the location of Complainant's headquarters and most of its offices, and the ".us" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Capital One Financial Corp. v. John Bernic, FA 1612153 (Forum May 1, 2015) (finding <capitaloneny.us> confusingly similar to CAPITAL ONE); Charter Communications Holding Co. v. Muhammad Salman Khan, FA 1793148 (Forum July 19, 2018) (finding <spectrumbuy.com> confusingly similar to CHARTER SPECTRUM, SPECTRUM BUSINESS, SPECTRUM INTERNET, and related marks). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and Respondent does not appear to be making any active use of the domain name. Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that the domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who 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." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] 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 or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
The disputed domain name incorporates the distinctive portion of Complainant's mark and but for the top-level domain is identical to the domain name that Complainant uses for its primary website, and Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the disputed domain name. In the absence of any explanation from Respondent, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the domain name intending to use it in a manner calculated to create and exploit confusion with Complainant's mark, most likely either by selling the domain name or by using it to attract Internet users seeking Complainant, and that Respondent is maintaining the domain name for that purpose. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. ReachLocal Hostmaster, FA 1762154 (Forum Jan. 8, 2018) (inferring bad faith registration and use under UDRP in similar circumstances); Capital One Financial Corp. v. John Bernic, supra (inferring bad faith registration or use under usTLD Policy in similar circumstances). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <signatureny.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: June 26, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page