Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. NASSER ALMOHADDADI
Claim Number: FA2301002028391
Complainant is Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association (“Complainant”), represented by Gail Podolsky of Carlton Fields, P.A., Georgia, USA. Respondent is NASSER ALMOHADDADI (“Respondent”), Qatar.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <websterb.link>, registered with Hostinger, UAB.
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 20, 2023; Forum received payment on January 20, 2023.
On January 23, 2023, Hostinger, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <websterb.link> domain name is registered with Hostinger, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hostinger, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hostinger, UAB 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 23, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 13, 2023 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@websterb.link. Also on January 23, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 20, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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.
Previous panels have interpreted the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:
It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.
There are two Complainants in this matter and Webster Bank, National Association is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Webster Financial Corporation. The Panel therefore finds that there is a sufficient link between the named Complainants and refers to them jointly as Complainant in this proceeding..
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <websterb.link> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WEBSTER mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <websterb.link> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <websterb.link> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant offers financial services and holds registrations for the WEBSTER and WEBSTER BANK marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,012,979, registered on November 8, 2005).
Respondent registered the <websterb.link> domain name on December 21, 2022, and uses it to pass off as 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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the WEBSTER and WEBSTER BANK marks based on registration with the USPTO. 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 <websterb.link> domain name contains Complainant’s entire WEBSTER mark and merely adds the letter “b” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.link”. The addition of a single letter and a gTLD to a mark does not prevent a domain name from being confusingly similar to the mark. See Bank of America Corporation v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1629452 (Forum Aug. 18, 2015) (stating that the <blankofamerica.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA trademark because, by adding the letter “l,” the domain name amounts to a common misspelling of the trademark); see also ModCloth, Inc. v. James McAvoy, FA 1629102 (Forum Aug. 16, 2015) (“The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it differs from Complainant’s mark by merely adding the letter ‘L’ . . . ”). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s <websterb.link> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WEBSTER mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”).
Complainant contends that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <websterb.link> domain name, as it is not commonly known by the domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s WEBSTER or WEBSTER BANK marks. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Nasser Almohaddadi”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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).
Complainant asserts that Respondent does not use the <websterb.link> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Panel notes that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to replicate Complainant’s website, which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Dell Inc. v. Devesh Tyagi, FA 1785301 (Forum June 2, 2018) (“Respondent replicates Complainant’s website and displays Complainant’s products. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”)
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <websterb.link> domain name in bad faith to pass off as Complainant for financial gain. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant in an attempt to gain personal information from users is evidence of registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. jaskima smith, FA 1750160 (Forum Oct. 26, 2017) (finding the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith to pass off as the complainant in an attempt to gain personal information from users who mistakenly access the website); see also FIL Limited v. Li jie, FA 1718900 (Forum Mar. 17, 2017) (finding the <fidelity.cn.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith as it resolved to a website which mimicked the complainant’s login page in an attempt to gain Internet users’ personal and financial information). Complainant offers as proof screenshots of the disputed domain name’s resolving website, which mimmics Complainant’s website and solicits customers’ personal information. The Panel finds that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the <websterb.link> domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the WEBSTER BANK mark. The Panel agrees, noting that Respondent copies from Complainant’s website, and finds that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Miles, FA 105890 (Forum May 31, 2002) (“Respondent is using the domain name at issue to resolve to a website at which Complainant’s trademarks and logos are prominently displayed. Respondent has done this with full knowledge of Complainant’s business and trademarks. The Panel finds that this conduct is that which is prohibited by Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <websterb.link> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: February 20, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page