DECISION

 

Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. 杨智超

Claim Number: FA2308002058637

PARTIES

Complainant is Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association ("Complainant"), represented by Gail Podolsky of Carlton Fields, P.A., Georgia, USA. Respondent is Yang Zhichao ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <websteronloine.com>, registered with Xiamen 35.Com Technology Co., Ltd..

 

PANEL

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 23, 2023; Forum received payment on August 23, 2023.

 

On August 24, 2023, Xiamen 35.Com Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <websteronloine.com> domain name is registered with Xiamen 35.Com Technology Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Xiamen 35.Com Technology Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Xiamen 35.Com Technology Co., Ltd. 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 August 30, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 19, 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@websteronloine.com. Also on August 30, 2023, the Chinese and English 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 September 20, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUES:

 

MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS

In this proceeding there are two Complainants. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that "[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint."  The Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint."

 

Webster Bank, National Association is a wholly owned subsidiary of Webster Financial Corporation. Together they offer commercial and consumer banking services. Additionally, there is no objection by Respondent to the two named Complainants proceeding together as if one. The Panel therefore finds that the two nominal complainants (herein referred to collectively as Complainant) have a sufficient nexus to each other and to the matters complained of such that they can be treated as if a single entity. See Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003) (treating the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names); see also, Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004) (finding a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark).

 

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING

Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a) the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been proffered by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. Notably, the content of Respondent's <websteronloine.com> website is in English and furthermore the privacy policy concerning Respondent's <websteronloine.com> website is also English. Therefore, after considering the circumstances of the present dispute including Respondent's failure to respond, the Panel concludes that the proceeding should be conducted in English.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends as follows:

 

Complainant, Webster Financial Corporation, is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Waterbury, Connecticut. Complainant, Webster Bank, National Association is a federally-chartered national bank and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Webster Financial Corporation.

 

Complainants offer a wide range of banking and financial services, including online banking, checking account, and mortgage loan services under names and marks incorporating the term WEBSTER.

 

Complainant's has rights in the WEBSTER and WEBSTERONLINE.COM trademarks via their registration with the USPTO.

 

Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks as it contains all or a significant part of Complainant's WEBSTER and WEBSTERONLINE.COM (albeit by the intentional addition of the letter "o" in the word "online") trademarks.

 

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <websteronloine.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the WEBSTER or WEBSTERONLINE.COM marks in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent's domain name addresses a website that offers links to services that compete with Complainant's business. Respondent registered and uses the <websteronloine.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent is engaging in typosquatting. Respondent used a privacy service in registering the at-issue domain name. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the WEBSTER and WEBSTERONLINE.COM marks.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the WEBSTER and WEBSTERONLINE.COM trademarks.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain names after Complainant acquired rights in the WEBSTER and WEBSTERONLINE.COM trademarks.

 

Respondent's <websteronloine.com> website bring users to a website containing links to third parties that offer services in competition with those offered by Complainant.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant demonstrates rights in WEBSTER and WEBSTERONLINE.COM per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through Complainant's registration of such marks with the USPTO. See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").").

 

Respondent's <websteronloine.com> domain name contains Complainant's WEBSTER and WEBSTERONLINE.COM trademarks where the later mark is misspelled by inserting an additional letter "o." The domain name concludes with the ".com" top-level domain name which is also part of Complainant's WEBSTERONLINE.COM trademark. The differences between either of Complainant's trademarks and the at-issue domain name do not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <websteronloine.com> domain name is confusingly similar to both Complainant's WEBSTER and WEBSTERONLINE.COM trademarks. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA2303002038314, (Forum July 26, 2023) ("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also, OpenTable, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1626187 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) ("Respondent's <oipentable.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the OPENTABLE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the disputed domain merely adds the letter 'i' . . . ");

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)").

 

The WHOIS information for <websteronloine.com> indicates that "Yang Zhichao" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record showing that Respondent is otherwise known by the <websteronloine.com> domain name. Given the foregoing, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent uses <websteronloine.com> to host hyperlinks to third parties in competition with Complainant. Such use of the domain name is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant's business).

 

Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and conclusively demonstrates Respondent's lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, there is evidence that leads the Panel to find that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.

 

First and as mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent used the at-issue domain name to direct internet users to a website displaying links to Complainant's competitors. These links presumably benefit Respondent either under a pay-per-click scheme or otherwise. Respondent's use of the domain name in this manner is disruptive to Complainant's business and capitalizes on the confusion that Respondent created between the domain name and Complainant's trademark. Respondent's use of <websteronloine.com> thus shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <websteronloine.com> pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Plain Green, LLC v. wenqiang tang, FA 1505001621656 (Forum July 1, 2015) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to feature generic third-party hyperlinks constituted bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v.  Kentech Company LTD, FA0501000406522 (Forum March 4, 2005) ("[T]he Panel infers that Respondent receives click- through fees for diverting Internet users to competing car rental services. Since Respondent is using a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, consumers searching for Complainant online who access Respondent's domain name may become confused as to Complainant's affiliation with the resulting website. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent's commercial use of the <carenterprise.com> constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).").

 

Next, Respondent is engaged in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the resulting string in a domain name. The registrant hopes that internet users will: 1) inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for content related to the domain name's target trademark and/or, 2) in viewing the domain name will confuse it with its target trademark. Respondent's at-issue domain name is formed by adding a superfluous "o" to Complainant's WEBSTERONLINE.COM trademark. Upon casually glancing at Respondent's <websteronloine.com> domain name it is predicable that the domain name, when viewed by some number of internet users, will pass for the address of Complainant's official website at <websteronline.com>. There is also some likelihood that typing errors by some internet users seeking Complainant will inadvertently deliver them to Respondent's webpage and Complainant's competition. Typosquatting is, in itself, indicative of bad faith. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). 

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in WEBSTER and WEBSTERONLINE.COM when it registered <websteronloine.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's marks is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's WEBSTER and WEBSTERONLINE.COM trademarks. Respondent's registration and use of the confusingly similar <websteronloine.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights in WEBSTER and WEBSTERONLINE.COM shows Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <websteronloine.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: September 21, 2023