DECISION

 

The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Wu Yu

Claim Number: FA2310002065706

 

PARTIES

Complainant is The Toronto-Dominion Bank ("Complainant"), Canada represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden. Respondent is Wu Yu ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <tdeasywebmobile.com> and <td-app-login.com>, registered with Dynadot Inc.

 

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 October 11, 2023; Forum received payment on October 11, 2023.

 

On October 11, 2023, Dynadot Inc confirmed by email to Forum that the <tdeasywebmobile.com> and <td-app-login.com> domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot Inc 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 16, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 6, 2023 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@tdeasywebmobile.com, postmaster@td-app-login.com. Also on October 16, 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 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 7, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is the second largest bank in Canada and the sixth largest in North America. Complainant has over 86,000 employees and over 25 million clients worldwide. Complainant uses TD, TD BANK, and EASYWEB for financial, banking, and related businesses, goods, and services. Complainant owns longstanding trademark registrations in the United States and China for TD and TD BANK, and Canadian trademark registrations for TD, TD BANK, and EASYWEB. Complainant claims that its TD brand is well recognized globally, citing various surveys that rank it among the world's most valuable brands.

 

The disputed domain names <tdeasywebmobile.com> and <td-app-login.com> were registered in January 2023. The names are registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. Each domain name resolves to a GoDaddy web page offering to sell the name for $2,999. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names, is not affiliated with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's marks.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain names <tdeasywebmobile.com> and <td-app-login.com> are confusingly similar to its TD and EASYWEB marks; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are 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 <tdeasywebmobile.com> incorporates Complainant's registered TD and EASYWEB trademarks, adding the generic term "mobile" and the ".com" top-level domain. The disputed domain name <td-app-login.com> incorporates the TD mark, adding hyphens, the generic terms "app" and "login," and the ".com" top-level domain. In both instances, the additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark or marks. See, e.g., Toronto-Dominion Bank v. James lpo / Mvd, FA 2061518 (Forum Oct. 12, 2023) (finding <td-appeasyweb.com> confusingly similar to TD and EASYWEB); Toronto-Dominion Bank v. See PrivacyGuardian.org / Domain Administrator, FA 2060188 (Forum Sept. 30, 2023) (finding <tdeasywebverification.com> confusingly similar to TD and EASYWEB); Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Andrei Pochivalov, FA 1862629 (Forum Oct. 17, 2019) (finding <td-easyweb-login.com> confusingly similar to TD and EASYWEB). The Panel considers each of the disputed domain names 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 names, 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 names incorporate Complainant's registered marks without authorization, and their sole apparent use has been to redirect Internet users to web pages that offer the domain names for sale. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Jessie Larson, FA 2060555 (Forum Oct. 3, 2023) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Domain Sales - (Expired domain caught by auction winner) c/o Dynadot, FA 2041478 (Forum May 19, 2023) (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, 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 names.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name."

 

Respondent used a privacy registration service to register two domain names that incorporate one or more of Complainant's marks. The only apparent use to which Respondent has put the domain names is to redirect them to web pages offering the domain names for sale at a price that the Panel infers to be far in excess of Respondent's out-of-pocket costs. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Jessie Larson, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Domain Sales - (Expired domain caught by auction winner) c/o Dynadot, supra (same). The Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

 

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 <tdeasywebmobile.com> and <td-app-login.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: November 8, 2023