Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC and its related entity CE TM Holdings LLC v. Charles Allock
Claim Number: FA2007001904727
Complainant is Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC and its related entity CE TM Holdings LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Laura M. Franco of Winston & Strawn LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Charles Allock (“Respondent”), Pennsylvania, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <citadelir.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 17, 2020; the Forum received payment on July 17, 2020.
On July 20, 2020, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <citadelir.com> 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 21, 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@citadelir.com. Also on July 21, 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 11, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant provides alternative investment strategies.
Complainant has rights in the CITADEL mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <citadelir.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as Respondent merely adds the descriptive term “IR,” an acronym for the phrase “investor relations,” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondents has no rights or legitimate interests in the <citadelir.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name nor has Respondent been licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to use Complainant’s mark. Furthermore, Respondent’s use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent is attempting to divert internet users to Respondent’s website so that Respondent’s may offer competing services.
Respondent registered and used the <citadelir.com> domain name in bad faith. Specifically, Respondent is attempting to disrupt Complainant’s business and attract internet users for commercial gain with a competing website. Finally, Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CITADEL mark at the time of registration.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in the CITADEL mark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the CITADEL trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a competing website.
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”).
The at-issue domain name is identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s USPTO trademark registration for CITADEL is conclusive evidence of its rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <citadelir.com> domain name contains Complainant’s entire CITADEL trademark suffixed by the suggestive acronym “IR” (investor relations) and concludes with the top-level domain name “.com.” The differences between Complainant’s CITADEL trademark and Respondent’s at-issue domain name fail to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark pursuant to the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <citadelir.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITADEL trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).. See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the <citadelir.com> 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.
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the registrant of <citadelir.com> as “Charles Allock” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by the <citadelir.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Additionally, Respondent uses the confusingly similar <citadelir.com> domain name to address Respondent’s <citadelir.com> website which displays Complainant’s trademark and is designed to compete with Complainant by offering similar services. Respondent’s use of <citadelir.com> to facilitate Respondent in competing with Complainant constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See 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).”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, there is evidence from which the Panel may conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
As mentioned above regarding rights and interests, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name in furtherance of trading on Complainant’s mark and offering services competing with those offered by Complainant. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar <citadelir.com> domain name in this manner disrupts Complainant’s business and indicates Respondent’s bad faith regarding the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Walgreen Co. v. MUHAMMAD SALEEM / WALGREENSGENERAL TRADING LLC, FA 1790453 (Forum Jul. 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar <walgreensshop.com> domain name in furtherance of trading competitively on Complainant’s WALGREENS trademark demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).”); see also Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sept. 7, 2018) (“In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe the links on it are connected to or approved by Complainant as they offer competing products under a sign confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as well as containing links related to Complainant itself. Accordingly, the Panel holds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or products on it likely to disrupt the business of Complainant.”).
Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CITADEL mark when it registered <citadelir.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s CITADEL trademark, from Respondent’s inclusion of the suggestive term “IR” (investor relations) within the at-issue domain name, and from Respondent’s use of the website addressed by the at-issue domain name to display Complainant’s trademark and offer competitive services. Respondent’s registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights in such domain name further indicates Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, 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).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <citadelir.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: August 11, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page