TD Ameritrade IP Company, Inc. v. Fortress Arigo
Claim Number: FA2201001979614
Complainant is TD Ameritrade IP Company, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Lian Ernette of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Fortress Arigo ("Respondent"), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <td-ameritradefx.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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 7, 2022; the Forum received payment on January 7, 2022.
On January 7, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <td-ameritradefx.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 January 12, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 1, 2022 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@td-ameritradefx.com. Also on January 12, 2022, 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 February 7, 2022, 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 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 is a United States investing services company founded in 1975 that offers an electronic trading platform. Complainant provides investing and trading services for over 11 million client accounts with more than $1 trillion in assets, and custodial services for more than 6,000 independent registered investment advisors. Complainant uses the TD AMERITRADE mark in connection with these services, and contends that the mark has become famous as a result of extensive use and promotion. Complainant owns various United States trademark registrations for TD AMERITRADE in standard character and stylized form.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <td-ameritradefx.com> via a privacy registration service in September 2021. The domain name is being used for a website that offers or purports to offer cryptocurrency and foreign exchange ("fx") trading services under the "TD-AMERITRADEFX" name, soliciting users to provide sensitive financial information and payment. The site also displays a logo that is extremely similar to Complainant's design mark. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, is not associated or affiliated with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <td-ameritradefx.com> is confusingly similar to its TD AMERITRADE 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 and 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 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 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 <td-ameritradefx.com> incorporates Complainant's registered TD AMERITRADE trademark, substituting a hyphen for the space and adding the abbreviation "fx" and the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Pantera Advisors LLC v. Janes Whiteman, FA 1960212 (Forum Sept. 23, 2021) (finding <panteracapitalglobalfx.com> confusingly similar to PANTERA); Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Mike Pierre, FA 1874597 (Forum Jan. 13, 2020) (finding <tdcanada-trust-verification.com> confusingly similar to TD and CANADA TRUST); TD Ameritrade IP Co., Inc. v. Ronald Russell, FA 1531789 (Forum Dec. 24, 2013) (finding <tradetdameritrade.com> confusingly similar to TD AMERITRADE). 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 it is being used for a misleading and likely fraudulent website that passes off as Complainant and promotes competing services. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Pantera Advisors LLC v. Janes Whiteman, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Citigroup Inc. v. Amjad Zoabi / United Networks Ltd / Max Media, FA 1918386 (Forum Dec. 4, 2020) (same); Bank of America Corp. v. Y L, FA 1847722 (Forum July 11, 2019) (same).
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 and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." 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."
Respondent used a privacy registrations service to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's well-known mark, and is using the domain name for a misleading and likely fraudulent website that passes off as Complainant and promotes competing services. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Pantera Advisors LLC v. Janes Whiteman, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances); Citigroup Inc. v. Amjad Zoabi / United Networks Ltd / Max Media, supra (same); Bank of America Corp. v. Y L, supra (same). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <td-ameritradefx.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: February 10, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page