DECISION

 

Regions Bank v. Nwagwu Uchenna Solomon

Claim Number: FA2308002058705

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Regions Bank ("Complainant"), represented by Rachel Hofstatter of Honigman LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Nwagwu Uchenna Solomon ("Respondent"), Philippines.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <regionsbk.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

David E. Sorkin 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, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <regionsbk.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 August 28, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 18, 2023 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@regionsbk.com. Also on August 28, 2023, 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, 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 David E. Sorkin 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.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is the banking subsidiary of Regions Financial Corporation, one of the largest financial institutions in the United States, with $156 billion in assets. Complainant has used the REGIONS, REGIONSBANK, and REGIONS BANK marks in connection with its products and services since at least as early as 1993, and owns corresponding United States trademark registrations. Complainant asserts that these marks have become famous as a result of longstanding and extensive use and promotion, and notes that they have been so found in previous proceedings under the Policy. See, e.g., Regions Asset Co. v. ICS INC., FA 1436598 (Forum Apr. 26, 2012).

 

The disputed domain name <regionsbk.com> was registered in September 2021. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name resolves to a parking page maintained by the registrar that contains links to direct competitors of Complainant. Complainant alleges, with supporting evidence, that the domain name is also being used to impersonate Complainant and one of its employees in email correspondence soliciting personal information from a customer of Complainant, including a copy of the customer's passport. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's marks.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <regionsbk.com> is confusingly similar to its REGIONS, REGIONSBANK, and REGIONS BANK marks; 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.

 

FINDINGS

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.

 

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 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <regionsbk.com> incorporates Complainant's registered REGIONS trademark, adding the letters "BK" (an abbreviated form of "bank") and the ".com" top-level domain. It also corresponds to Complainant's REGIONSBANK and REGIONS BANK marks, omitting the letters "AN" (and, in the latter instance, the space) and adding the top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's marks. See, e.g., Webster Financial Corp. & Webster Bank, National Ass'n v. Isiko Godwin, FA 1973492 (Forum Dec. 27, 2021) (finding <webstgeronlinebk.com> confusingly similar to WEBSTER and WEBSTERONLINE.COM); Capital Bank Corp. v. OGHENEOVO OKUMA / CAPITAL CONCEPT, FA 1692759 (Forum Oct. 12, 2016) (finding <capital-bk.com> confusingly similar to CAPITAL BANK); Regions Asset Co. v. PrivacyProtect.org / Domain Admin, FA 1439913 (Forum May 31, 2012) (finding <regionsbabk.com> confusingly similar to REGIONSBANK); Regions Asset Co. v. Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft / Domain Admin, FA 1407742 (Forum Oct. 18, 2011) (finding <regionsbamk.com> confusingly similar to REGIONSBANK). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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. It is being used for a website composed of pay-per-click links to competitors of Complainant, and in email messages impersonating Complainant for fraudulent purposes. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Regions Bank v. John Bremmer, FA 2034130 (Forum Apr. 3, 2023) (phishing e-mails); Regions Asset Co. v. ICS INC., supra (competing links); Regions Asset Co. v. Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft / Domain Admin, supra (competing links).

 

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.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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 registration service to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's well-known marks, and is using it to impersonate Complainant in support of a fraudulent phishing scheme. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Regions Bank v. John Bremmer, FA 2034130 (Forum Apr. 3, 2023) (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); KITELYTECH, INC. v. Diane K. Orum, FA 2023340 (Forum Jan. 5, 2023) (same). The Panel so finds.

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: September 21, 2023