Lakeland Bancorp, Inc. v. Anonymize, Inc.
Claim Number: FA2112001978278
Complainant is Lakeland Bancorp, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Vanessa A. Ignacio of Lowenstein Sandler LLP, New Jersey, USA. Respondent is Anonymize, Inc. (“Respondent”), Washington, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lakelandbank.org>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with Epik 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 December 24, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 24, 2021.
On December 29, 2021, Epik Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <lakelandbank.org> Domain Name is registered with Epik Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Epik Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Epik 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 January 4, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 24, 2022 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@lakelandbank.org. Also on January 4, 2022, 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 31, 2022 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 summarized as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the mark LAKELAND BANK registered, inter alia, in the USA for financial services with first use recorded as 1997.
The addition of the gTLD “.org” does not distinguish the Domain Name registered in 2020 from the Complainant’s mark and they are identical for the purposes of the Policy.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it or authorized by the Complainant.
The Domain Name has been offered for sale generally on a parked page for a sum well in excess of the costs of registration of the Domain Name which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
The Respondent has sent to the Complainant copies of e mails (the Respondent has received from Internet users who were attempting to e mail the Complainant) suggesting thereby that the Complainant should purchase the Domain Name.
Offering the Domain Name for sale for a sum in excess of out of pocket registration costs and disclosing that the Respondent is receiving e mails intended for the Complainant to try to force the Complainant to purchase the demonstrates the Respondent’s primary intention behind registering the Domain Name is to sell the Domain Name for profit and is bad faith registration and use. The Respondent did not answer a letter before action from the Complainant.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the mark LAKELAND BANK registered, inter alia, in the USA for financial services with first use recorded as 1997.
The Domain Name registered in 2020 has been offered to the Complainant and generally on a parked internet page for sale for a sum well in excess of costs of registration and the Respondent has disclosed to the Complainant that the Respondent is receiving e mails intended for the Complainant.
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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant's LAKELAND BANK mark (which is registered in the USA for financial services with the first use recorded as 1997) and the gTLD “.org”.
The gTLD “.org” does not prevent the Domain Name being identical to the Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is identical for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint to explain the background to the registration of the Domain Name and is not authorized by the Complainant. The Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 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 Domain Name containing the Complainant’s mark has been offered for sale for a sum well in excess of registration costs which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Diego Ossa, FA1501001602016 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015).
As such the Panel 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 Respondent has not answered this Complaint and has not explained why it should be entitled to register a domain name consisting of the Complainant’s mark which has a reputation for financial services and a gTLD.
The Domain Name containing the Complainant’s mark has been offered for sale generally and to the Complainant for sums well in excess of costs of registration of the Domain Name. See Capital One Financial Corp. v. haimin xu, FA 1819364 (Forum Jan. 8, 2019) (“A general offer to sell a domain name can be evidence the respondent intended to make such an offer at the time it registered the name, supporting a finding of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”) See Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Kenechukwu Okoli, FA 1821759 (Forum Jan. 13, 2019) (“The domain name’s website listed the domain name for sale for $9,150. Respondent also contacted Complainant directly to offer the domain name for sale. Doing so suggests bad faith registration and use of the <lufthansamiles.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”). Further the Respondent has sought to put pressure on the Complainant to purchase the Domain Name by disclosing the Respondent is receiving e mails intended for the Complainant.
As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith primarily for the purposes of sale for profit and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lakelandbank.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: January 31, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page