American International Group, Inc. v. Divine Prince / divineweb
Claim Number: FA2007001904061
Complainant is American International Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Tamara A. Miller of Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Divine Prince / divineweb (“Respondent”), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <aiginvestments.ltd> (‘the Domain Name’), registered with NameCheap, Inc.
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.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 13, 2020; the Forum received payment on July 13, 2020.
On July 14, 2020, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <aiginvestments.ltd> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 20, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 10, 2020 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@aiginvestments.ltd. Also on July 20, 2020, 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 August 12, 2020 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the mark AIG, registered, inter alia, in the USA for financial and insurance services with first use recorded as 1968.
The Domain Name registered in 2019 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark adding only the generic term "investments" and the gTLD ".com" which do not prevent confusingly similarity.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant.
The Domain Name has been pointed to a site offering competing financial services and fraudulently using the Complainant’s UK address and taking consumer information. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. It is registration and use in bad faith redirecting consumers for consumer gain and disrupting the Complainant’s business. The Respondent used a privacy service and false contact details which are further indications of bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the mark AIG, registered, inter alia, in the USA for financial and insurance services with first use recorded as 1968.
The Domain Name registered in 2019 has been used for a site fraudulently using the Complainant’s UK address, offering competing services and taking customer information.
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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consist of the Complainant's AIG mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the USA for financial and insurance services with first use recorded as 1968), the descriptive term "investments" and the gTLD ".ltd".
The addition of the generic term "investments" and a gTLD does not negate confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trade mark contained within it. See Wiluna Holdings LLC v Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan 22, 2016) (Finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy 4(a) (i)).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The use is commercial and so cannot be noncommercial legitimate fair use.
The web site attached to the Domain Name uses the Complainant's AIG mark and the Complainant’s UK address to offer competing services. It does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection between the site attached to the Domain Name and the Complainant and the web site appears connected to the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to compete with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.); see also Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) (“Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)”); see also Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent’s own website for commercial gain does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Nor is collecting information for suspected phishing purposes. See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (“a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The use of the Complainant’s address shows that the Respondent has actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business, services and rights.
In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent’s site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it offers directory services under the Complainant’s mark and using the Complainant’s UK address giving the impression that the site attached to the Domain Name is connected with the Complainant.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or services on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use).
In addition phishing or collecting information from unwitting customers has also been held to be bad faith registration and use in itself. See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc v LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA 1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015).
The panellist also notes that the Respondent used a privacy service and gave false contact details in the WhoIS which is also an indication of bad faith. See Robert Half International Inc. v. robert arran, FA 1764367 (Forum Feb. 5. 2018) (“Respondent's use of a privacy registration service in an attempt to conceal his identity, though not itself dispositive, is a further indication of bad faith.”); see also CNU ONLINE Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1504001614972 (Forum May 29, 2015) (“As the Panel sees that Respondent has provided false or misleading WHOIS information, the Panel finds bad faith in Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(iv) and 4(b)(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 <aiginvestments.ltd> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: August 12, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page