DECISION

 

Webster Financial Corporation v. yang zhi chao

Claim Number: FA2402002082048

PARTIES

Complainant is Webster Financial Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Gail Podolsky of Carlton Fields, P.A., Georgia, USA. Respondent is yang zhi chao ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <hsahank.com>, registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 1, 2024; Forum received payment on February 1, 2024.

 

On February 2, 2024, Xin Net Technology Corporation confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <hsahank.com> domain name is registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Xin Net Technology Corporation has verified that Respondent is bound by the Xin Net Technology Corporation 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 February 6, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 26, 2024 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@hsahank.com. Also on February 6, 2024, 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 in Chinese and English.

 

On February 27, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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

1.       Respondent's <hsahank.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HSA BANK mark.

 

2.       Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <hsahank.com> domain name.

 

3.       Respondent registered and uses the <hsahank.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent did not file a Response.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds a registration for the HSA BANK mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 3,161,483, registered October 24, 2006).

 

Respondent registered the <hsahank.com> domain name on March 29, 2023, and uses it to offer competing banking services.

 

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

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the HSA BANK mark through registration with the USPTO. 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).")

 

Respondent's <hsahank.com> domain name uses a slightly misspelled version of Complainant's HSA BANK and adds the ".com" gTLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Shuai Wei Xu / Xu Shuai Wei, FA 1784238 (Forum June 1, 2018) ("Respondent arrives at each of the disputed domain names by merely misspelling each of the disputed domain names and adding the gTLD '.com.'  This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant's trademark.") Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <hsahank.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HSA BANK mark.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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").

 

Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <hsahank.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the HSA BANK mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "yang zhi chao". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same); see also 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)").

 

Complainant contends that Respondent fails to use the <hsahank.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the domain name resolves to a webpage that appears to offer competing banking services. See Invesco Ltd. v. Premanshu Rana, FA 1733167 (Forum July 10, 2017) ("Use of a domain name to divert Internet users to a competing website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.") Complainant provides screenshots showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer services such as "Hsa Bank Login". The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the <hsahank.com> domain name in bad faith to directly compete with Complainant. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. MIZHAR salem, FA 1774836 (Forum Apr. 4, 2018) (finding bad faith in registration of disputed domains because "[u]sing a disputed domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant for commercial gain . . . can evidence bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).")

 

Complainant also argues that Respondent engages in typosquatting by slightly misspelling the HSA BANK mark in the disputed domain name. Typosquatting is the practice of incorporating a mark and adding small typographical errors, which is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Shuai Wei Xu / Xu Shuai Wei, FA 1784238 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding the respondent engaged in typosquatting—and thus registered and used the at-issue domain names in bad faith—where the names consisted of the complainant's mark with small typographical errors introduced therein). The Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting, showing bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel also finds that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the HSA BANK mark when it registered the disputed domain name, as Respondent uses it to directly compete with Complainant. The Panel therefore finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Charter Commc'ns Holding Co. v. MIZHAR salem, FA 1774836 (Forum April 4, 2018) (finding bad faith registration of the domain name <charterspectrumonline.com> because "[a]ctual knowledge of a complainant's mark prior to registering a confusingly similar domain name can evidence bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).")

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <hsahank.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated: February 28, 2024