Barclays PLC v. lutfu dogan akbas
Claim Number: FA2202001984918
Complainant is Barclays PLC ("Complainant"), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is lutfu dogan akbas ("Respondent"), Turkey.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ipathetn.com>, registered with Top Level Domains LLC.
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 February 18, 2022; the Forum received payment on February 18, 2022.
On February 23, 2022, Top Level Domains LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <ipathetn.com> domain name is registered with Top Level Domains LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Top Level Domains LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Top Level Domains LLC 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 February 24, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 16, 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@ipathetn.com. Also on February 24, 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 March 21, 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 financial institution with operations in dozens of countries and territories worldwide. Complainant has used IPATH and related marks in connection with exchange traded notes (ETNs) and other financial services since at least as early as 2005. Complainant owns trademark registrations for IPATH in several jurisdictions, including a United States registration for IPATH in standard character form that issued in 2006. Complainant owned the disputed domain name <ipathetn.com> and used it to promote its IPATH ETN products for more than a decade until approximately December 2021, when the registration lapsed due to an oversight.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <ipathetn.com> in February 2022. The domain name is being used for a website that displays Complainant's name, mark, and logo; contains content copied from the website that Complainant operated when it owned the domain name; and purports to offer ETNs under Complainant's IPATH mark. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, is not a licensee of Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <ipathetn.com> is confusingly similar to its IPATH 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 <ipathetn.com> incorporates Complainant's registered IPATH trademark, adding the abbreviation "ETN" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Nippon Life India Asset Management Ltd. v. Private Registrant, Digital Privacy Corp. / Abhishek Rai, Amplinno India Pvt. Ltd., D2020-3038 (WIPO Jan. 11, 2021) (finding <nipponindiaetf.com> confusingly similar to NIPPON INDIA); UBS AG v. JinLong Wang, FA 1728519 (Forum May 20, 2017) (finding <ubsetf.com> confusingly similar to UBS). 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 website that passes off as Complainant for what the Panel infers to be fraudulent purposes. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Lydia K. Warren v. Robert Bonori, FA 1941647 (Forum May 27, 2021) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York v. Kostiantyn Golubtsov / lama.Media, FA 1925070 (Forum Jan. 13, 2021) (same); UBS AG v. JinLong Wang, supra (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."
The existence of a prior registration of the disputed domain name normally bears no relevance to bad faith. See Corbis Corp. v. Zest, FA 98441 (Forum Sept. 12, 2001) (registration of a lapsed domain name is in bad faith only where the registrant uses it to compete with the trademark owner or disrupt its business). In the present case, however, Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark and is using it to impersonate Complainant, likely for fraudulent purposes. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Lydia K. Warren v. Robert Bonori, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York v. Kostiantyn Golubtsov / lama.Media, supra (same); UBS AG v. JinLong Wang, 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 <ipathetn.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: March 22, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page