Regions Bank v. Yang Zhi Chao
Claim Number: FA2102001933758
Complainant is Regions Bank (“Complainant”), represented by Rachel Hofstatter of Honigman LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Yang Zhi Chao (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <regionsfinancialgroup.com>, registered with DNSPod, 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.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 26, 2021.The Forum received payment on February 26, 2021. The Complaint was received in English.
On March 1, 2021, DNSPod, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <regionsfinancialgroup.com> domain name is registered with DNSPod, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DNSPod, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the DNSPod, Inc. registration agreement, which is in Chinese, 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 March 8, 2021, the Forum served the English language Complaint and all Annexes, including an English and Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 29, 2021 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@regionsfinancialgroup.com. Also on March 8, 2021, the English and Chinese language 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 April 1, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
As noted, the Registration Agreement is in Chinese. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the language of the proceeding shall be Chinese unless otherwise determined by the Panel, having regard to the circumstances of the proceeding.
Complainant requests that the proceeding be conducted in English, noting that the domain name is in English and resolves to an English language website with English pay-per-click links. In the absence of any Response, these circumstances satisfy the Panel that Respondent is likely to be conversant with English and that there would be no undue prejudice to Respondent if English were the language of the proceeding.
Further, pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the English and Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
A. Complainant
Complainant’s parent company is Regions Financial Corporation (“RFC”), one of the largest financial institutions in the United States. Complainant is RFC’s banking subsidiary, operating approximately 1,300 branches and 2,000 automated teller machines. Complainant owns and maintains all trademarks on behalf of RFC, including the REGIONS mark, in which Complainant has rights based on registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <regionsfinancialgroup.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s REGIONS mark.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <regionsfinancialgroup.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the REGIONS mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the domain to host competing hyperlinks.
Respondent registered and uses the <regionsfinancialgroup.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the domain to host hyperlinks to competing services. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark based on the registration of the mark and Respondent’s use of the domain name to provide hyperlinks to Complainant’s competitors.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has established all the element entitling it to relief.
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”).
As a subsidiary of RFC, Complainant has shown that it has rights in the REGIONS mark based on registration of that mark in the name of RFC with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,881,600, registered Feb. 28, 1995 in relation to banking services).
The Panel finds Respondent’s <regionsfinancialgroup.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s REGIONS mark because it simply adds to that mark the generic words “financial group”, which do not distinguish the domain name from the mark, and the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), which may be ignored.
Complainant has established this element.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or 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 customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The <regionsfinancialgroup.com> domain name was registered on October 22, 2020, many years after Complainant has shown that the REGIONS mark had become very well-known. It resolves to a website containing a link for “Regions Bank Login” that sends consumers to services competitive with Complainant. Additional links including “Home Refinancing,” “Mortgage Refinance,” and “Mortgage Rates and Home Loans” also lead to webpages containing links advertising the services of Complainant’s and RFC’s competitors.
These circumstances, coupled with Complainant’s assertions, constitute a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <regionsfinancialgroup.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Accordingly, the burden shifts to Respondent to show he does have rights or legitimate interests. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the <regionsfinancialgroup.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant has established this element.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, i.e.
(i) circumstances indicating that the 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 who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the 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 the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website 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 the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
In light of the circumstances described above in relation to the second element, the Panel finds that that Respondent was well aware of Complainant’s REGIONS mark when registering the <regionsfinancialgroup.com> domain name and did so both primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor and intentionally to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website to which the domain name resolves, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of that website and of services promoted on its website.
The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered and is using the <regionsfinancialgroup.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Complainant has established this element.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <regionsfinancialgroup.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: April 5, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page