DECISION

 

Fidelity Information Services, LLC v. Andris Ciekurs / SIA Ambex

Claim Number: FA2309002062627

PARTIES

Complainant is Fidelity Information Services, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by AJ Schumacher of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Andris Ciekurs / SIA Ambex ("Respondent"), Latvia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <fis.solutions> and <fis-solutions.net>, registered with EuroDNS S.A.

 

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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 20, 2023. Forum received payment on September 20, 2023.

 

On September 21, 2023, EuroDNS S.A. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <fis.solutions> and <fis-solutions.net> domain names are registered with EuroDNS S.A. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. EuroDNS S.A. has verified that Respondent is bound by the EuroDNS S.A. 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 October 18, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 7, 2023 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@fis.solutions and postmaster@fis-solutions.net. Also on October 18, 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 registrations as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On November 8, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, Fidelity Information Services, LLC, is a global leader in the financial services technology space, with a focus on retail and institutional financial services businesses, including banks, capital markets businesses and investment and insurance companies.

 

Complainant has rights in the FIS mark through numerous trademark registrations, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") and in Latvia. Respondent's <fis.solutions> and <fis-solutions.net> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's FIS mark.

 

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <fis.solutions> and <fis-solutions.net> domain names since Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's FIS mark and there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by that name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the <fis.solutions> domain name redirects Internet visitors to a website offering financial technology solutions that are identical to and competing with those offered by Complainant under its FIS mark. The <fis-solutions.net> domain name resolves to a webpage hosting hyperlinks that display advertising for, and redirect visitors to, various third-party websites and services.

 

Respondent registered the <fis.solutions> and <fis-solutions.net> domain names in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the FIS mark and uses them in bad faith in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant and to host hyperlinks displaying advertising for third-party websites and services.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.

 

DISCUSSION

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:

 

(i)                      the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii)                      Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii)                      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 as 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 has shown that it has rights in the FIS mark through numerous registrations, including with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,841,536, registered on October 27, 2015). The Panel finds Respondent's <fis.solutions> and <fis-solutions.net> domain names to be confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, the former consisting of the FIS mark in its entirety and the latter only differing by the addition to that mark of a hyphen and the word "solutions", which do nothing to distinguish the domain name from the mark. The ".solutions" and ".net" generic top-level domains ("gTLDs") may be ignored. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429. However, if the ".solutions" gTLD were taken into account, it would serve to enhance the association of the domain name with Complainant's business.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain names for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.

 

(i)         before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain names or a name corresponding to the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii)         Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain names, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)         Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

The <fis.solutions> and <fis-solutions.net> domain names were registered on November 12, 2020 and September 8, 2021 respectively, many years after Complainant registered its FIS mark. The <fis.solutions> domain name resolves to a website at "www.ingain.com" offering lending solutions for lenders, fintechs and backs that compete with services offered by Complainant under its FIS mark. The <fis-solutions.net> domain name resolves to a webpage hosting hyperlinks to third-party websites offering consulting and technology services.

 

These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <fis.solutions> and <fis-solutions.net> domain names. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain names in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:

(iv)        by using the domain names, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant's FIS mark when Respondent registered the <fis.solutions> and <fis-solutions.net> domain names and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source of Respondent's websites and of the services promoted on those websites. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

DECISION

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

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <fis.solutions> and <fis-solutions.net> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: November 10, 2023