The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. jannot bibeau / jannot bibz / alex belirn
Claim Number: FA2307002051666
Complainant is The Toronto-Dominion Bank (“Complainant”), represented by Jason Hayden of CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden. Respondent is jannot bibeau / jannot bibz / alex belirn (“Respondent”), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <tdaccountverification.com>, <td-accountverification.com> and <td-onlineverification.com> (collectively “Domain Names”), registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 3, 2023; Forum received payment on July 3, 2023.
On July 5, 2023, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <tdaccountverification.com>, <td-accountverification.com> and <td-onlineverification.com> domain names are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 July 6, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 26, 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@tdaccountverification.com, postmaster@td-accountverification.com, postmaster@td-onlineverification.com. Also on July 6, 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 August 2, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Complainant contends that the registrants for the Domain Names are related because: 1) the Domain Names both contain Complainant’s TD mark and the term “verification” and either “account” or “online,” 2) The Domain Names were registered with the same Registrar in the same 24-hour period using the same DNS, 3) the named registrants are using obviously incorrect contact details, and 4) The Domain Names redirect to identical error pages.
This evidence, in the Panel’s opinion, strongly suggests that the Domain Names are owned/controlled by a single Respondent; It is highly unlikely that three unconnected entities using incorrect addresses would register very similar domain names with the same Registrar within the same 24-hour period and have them resolve to identical error pages.
In light of these contentions, which none of the identified Respondents deny, the Panel concludes that, on the balance of probabilities, the Domain Names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases. Hereafter the single Respondent will be referred to as “Respondent” in this Decision.
A. Complainant
Complainant is the second largest bank in Canada by market capitalization and the sixth largest bank in North America. Complainant has rights in the TD mark through multiple registrations of the mark, including Complainant’s registration of the mark with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) (e.g., Reg. No. TMA396087, registered on March 20, 1992) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 1,649,009, registered June 25, 1991). Respondent’s <tdaccountverification.com>, <td-accountverification.com> and <td-onlineverification.com> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s TD mark as they merely add the generic words “account verification” or “online verification”, in two cases a hyphen and the “.com” generic top-level-domain ("gTLD").
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <tdaccountverification.com>, <td-accountverification.com> and <td-onlineverification.com> domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the TD mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the Domain Names resolve to webpages that lack active content.
Respondent registered and uses the <tdaccountverification.com>, <td-accountverification.com> and <td-onlineverification.com> domain names in bad faith as Respondent fails to make an active use of the Domain Names and hopes to cause confusion through the use of the TD mark in the Domain Names. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TD mark due to the longstanding use and fame of the mark in commerce. Respondent has failed to respond to Complainant’s cease and desist letter. Finally, Respondent is using false addresses in the WHOIS records as a way of avoiding detection.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the TD mark. Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TD mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Names 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 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”).
Complainant has rights in the TD mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 1,649,009, registered June 25, 1991). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. 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).”).
The Panel finds that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the TD mark as they each incorporate the entire TD mark while adding generic terms, in two cases a hyphen, and the “.com” gTLD. Adding a generic term, a hyphen and a gTLD to a mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Svensson Viljae, FA 1784650 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding confusing similarity where “[t]he disputed domain name <skechers-outlet.com> adds a hyphen and the generic term ‘outlet’ to Complainant's registered SKECHERS mark, and appends the ‘.com’ top-level domain.”); see also MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the TD mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information of record lists “jannot bibeau / jannot bibz / alex belirn” as the registrants of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Each of the Domain Names is inactive (resolving to an error page) and there is no other evidence of any intention to use the Domain Names for any purpose, be it a bona fide offering or legitimate non-commercial use. In the absence of any additional evidence (none available in the present case) inactive holding of a disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018) (“Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Names, January 24-25, 2023, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s TD mark. The Complainant is one of the largest banks in North America, has used the TD mark since at least 1991 and its history dates back to 1855. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register three domain names that wholly incorporate to the TD mark (an abbreviation that has no ordinary meaning in the English language) and words/abbreviations that relate to aspects of Complainant’s operations, other than to take advantage of Complainant’s reputation in the TD mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel notes that the actions of Respondent in this matter do not fall under the arguments set out in Policy ¶ 4(b). However, these arguments are merely illustrative rather than exclusive to support a finding of bad faith. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Admin - This Domain is For Sale on GoDaddy.com / Trnames Premium Name Services, FA 1714157 (Forum Mar. 8, 2017) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) provisions are mere illustrative of bad faith, and that the respondent’s bad faith may be demonstrated by other allegations of bad faith under the totality of the circumstances). It is well accepted that the elements of Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive and that a Panel may consider all of the circumstances of a given case, including passive holding, in making its bad faith analysis. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) (after considering all the circumstances of a given case, it is possible that a “[r]espondent’s passive holding amounts to bad faith.”); see also Regions Bank v. Darla atkins, FA 1786409 (Forum June 20, 2018) (“Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because Respondent uses the domain name to host an inactive website.”).
Respondent has, without alternative explanation (or active use), registered three domain names containing the TD mark and words/abbreviations that could be used to describe aspects of Complainant’s services (the verification of accounts held with Complainant). Inactive holding of a domain name can be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and, after considering the totality of the circumstances (including the nature of the TD mark and the addition of words/abbreviations that relate to services offered by Complainant) and in the absence of any Response or other explanation for such inactivity by the Respondent, the Panel finds that this inactive holding of the Domain Name amounts to use in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds 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 <tdaccountverification.com>, <td-accountverification.com> and <td-onlineverification.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: August 1, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page