DECISION

 

THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK v. Petra Eichelberger/Diana Winkel/Anja Hartmann/Monika Biermann/Lukas Beike/Bernd Grunewald/Ulrich Zweig/Kristian Unger/Tobias Fuerst/Jörg Busch/Cristi Aragaki/Torsten Hartmann/Paul Berg/David Pfeiffer/Diana Brauer/Thorsten Kaiser/Daniela Azevedo/Jens Vogler/Thomas Beike/Frank Theissen/Laura Sommer/Marie Johnson/Sandra Maur/Dirk Beckenbauer/Juliane Kuhn/Phillipp Roth/Maximilian Hertzog/Wolfgang Maur/Tim Finkel/Maria Richter/Maria Herrmann/Heike Lange/Leonie Baumgartner/Max Baum/Lena Kuhn/Stephanie Neudorf/Anja Hartmann/Claudia Schneider/Kevin Schroder/Markus Fleischer

Claim Number: FA2403002089922

 

PARTIES

Complainant is THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK ("Complainant"), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden. Respondent is Petra Eichelberger/Diana Winkel/Anja Hartmann/Monika Biermann/Lukas Beike/Bernd Grunewald/Ulrich Zweig/Kristian Unger/Tobias Fuerst/Jörg Busch/Cristi Aragaki/Torsten Hartmann/Paul Berg/David Pfeiffer/Diana Brauer/Thorsten Kaiser/Daniela Azevedo/Jens Vogler/Thomas Beike/Frank Theissen/Laura Sommer/Marie Johnson/Sandra Maur/Dirk Beckenbauer/Juliane Kuhn/Phillipp Roth/Maximilian Hertzog/Wolfgang Maur/Tim Finkel/Maria Richter/Maria Herrmann/Heike Lange/Leonie Baumgartner/Max Baum/Lena Kuhn/Stephanie Neudorf/Anja Hartmann/Claudia Schneider/Kevin Schroder/Markus Fleischer ("Respondent"), Germany.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <esinasury-td.com>, <tdconnercialbarking.com>, <etresury-tdbark.com>, <etrasuny-td.com>, <tdcomnercialbarking.com>, <esinasuny-td.com>, <eslnasury-td.com>, <etsrasury-td.com>, <eslrasury-td.com>, <etresunry-tdbark.com>, <etreasurys-tdbarks.com>, <etreasuny-tdbark.com>, <esterauny-td.com>, <etserauny-td.com>, <etsenauny-td.com>, <etsenacuny-td.com>, <etsenasury-td.com>, <etsenasuny-td.com>, <etsernasury-td.com>, <esternasury-td.com>, <estenrasury-td.com>, <eterasury-td.com>, <etraesury-tdbork.com>, <eternasury-td.com>, <eslnasuny-td.com>, <estenauny-td.com>, <etheasery-td.com>, <etsenaury-td.com>, <etsenacury-td.com>, <eternasuny-td.com>, <etenrasuny-td.com>, <etraesary-tdbark.com>, <etraesurny-tdbark.com>, <etraesuny-tdbark-us.com>, <etreasury-tdbark-us.com>, <us-etresury-tdbark.com>, <us-etreasury-tdbark.com>, <etrasury-tdbark.com>, <etraesury-tdbark.com> and <etreasuny-td.com> (collectively "Domain Names"), registered with Hostinger Operations, Uab.

 

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.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 22, 2024; Forum received payment on March 22, 2024.

 

On March 26, 2024 and March 28, 2024, Hostinger Operations, Uab, confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <esinasury-td.com>, <tdconnercialbarking.com>, <etresury-tdbark.com>, <etrasuny-td.com>, <tdcomnercialbarking.com>, <esinasuny-td.com>, <eslnasury-td.com>, <etsrasury-td.com>, <eslrasury-td.com>, <etresunry-tdbark.com>, <etreasurys-tdbarks.com>, <etreasuny-tdbark.com>, <esterauny-td.com>, <etserauny-td.com>, <etsenauny-td.com>, <etsenacuny-td.com>, <etsenasury-td.com>, <etsenasuny-td.com>, <etsernasury-td.com>, <esternasury-td.com>, <estenrasury-td.com>, <eterasury-td.com>, <etraesury-tdbork.com>, <eternasury-td.com>, <eslnasuny-td.com>, <estenauny-td.com>, <etheasery-td.com>, <etsenaury-td.com>, <etsenacury-td.com>, <eternasuny-td.com>, <etenrasuny-td.com>, <etraesary-tdbark.com>, <etraesurny-tdbark.com>, <etraesuny-tdbark-us.com>, <etreasury-tdbark-us.com>, <us-etresury-tdbark.com>, <us-etreasury-tdbark.com>, <etrasury-tdbark.com>, <etraesury-tdbark.com> and <etreasuny-td.com> domain names are registered with Hostinger Operations, Uab and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Hostinger Operations, Uab has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hostinger Operations, Uab 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 April 3, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 23, 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@esinasury-td.com, postmaster@tdconnercialbarking.com, postmaster@etresury-tdbark.com, postmaster@etrasuny-td.com, postmaster@tdcomnercialbarking.com, postmaster@esinasuny-td.com, postmaster@eslnasury-td.com, postmaster@etsrasury-td.com, postmaster@eslrasury-td.com, postmaster@etresunry-tdbark.com, postmaster@etreasurys-tdbarks.com, postmaster@etreasuny-tdbark.com, postmaster@esterauny-td.com, postmaster@etserauny-td.com, postmaster@etsenauny-td.com, postmaster@etsenacuny-td.com, postmaster@etsenasury-td.com, postmaster@etsenasuny-td.com, postmaster@etsernasury-td.com, postmaster@esternasury-td.com, postmaster@estenrasury-td.com, postmaster@eterasury-td.com, postmaster@etraesury-tdbork.com, postmaster@eternasury-td.com, postmaster@eslnasuny-td.com, postmaster@estenauny-td.com, postmaster@etheasery-td.com, postmaster@etsenaury-td.com, postmaster@etsenacury-td.com, postmaster@eternasuny-td.com, postmaster@etenrasuny-td.com, postmaster@etraesary-tdbark.com, postmaster@etraesurny-tdbark.com, postmaster@etraesuny-tdbark-us.com, postmaster@etreasury-tdbark-us.com, postmaster@us-etresury-tdbark.com, postmaster@us-etreasury-tdbark.com, postmaster@etrasury-tdbark.com, postmaster@etraesury-tdbark.com, postmaster@etreasuny-td.com. Also on April 3, 2024, 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 registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

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

 

On April 24, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder."  

 

Complainant contends that the registrants for the Domain Names are related because: 1) the Domain Names all contain Complainant's TD mark along with misspellings of generic words 2) The Domain Names were registered with the same Registrar and a number of the Domain Names were registered in the same three-day period 3) the named registrants are using obviously incorrect names and contact details 4) Six of the Domain Names (<esinasuny-td.com>, <etrasuny-td.com>, <etsenasury-td.com>, <etsernasury-td.com>, <eterasury-td.com> and <eternasury-td.com>) (the "active Domain Names") resolve or have resolved to active websites ("Respondent's Websites"). The Respondent's Websites are best characterized as phishing websites, that impersonate Complainant (reproducing Complainant's mark and logo and/or copying details from Complainant's official website at www.etreasury.td.com) for the purpose of encouraging users to provide their account information and passwords to the Respondent by misleading them into thinking that they are signing up or logging into an official website operated by Complainant 5) The remaining 34 Domain Names (the "inactive Domain Names") are inactive though use the same Cloudflare name servers as the active Domain Names.

 

This evidence, in the Panel's opinion, strongly suggests that the Domain Names are owned/controlled by a single Respondent; It is highly unlikely that multiple unconnected entities using incorrect addresses would register very similar domain names with the same Registrar and, with respect of 6 of the Domain Names, point them to websites operating on similar business models.

 

In light of these contentions, which none of the identified Respondents deny, the Panel concludes that, on the balance of probabilities, the Domain Names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases. Hereafter the single Respondent will be referred to as "Respondent" in this Decision.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is the second largest bank in Canada by market capitalization and the sixth largest bank in North America. Complainant has rights in the TD mark through multiple registrations of the mark, including Complainant's registration of the mark with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office ("CIPO") (e.g. Reg. No. TMA396087, registered on March 20, 1992) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g. Reg. No. 1,649,009, registered June 25, 1991). Respondent's <esinasury-td.com>, <tdconnercialbarking.com>, <etresury-tdbark.com>, <etrasuny-td.com>, <tdcomnercialbarking.com>, <esinasuny-td.com>, <eslnasury-td.com>, <etsrasury-td.com>, <eslrasury-td.com>, <etresunry-tdbark.com>, <etreasurys-tdbarks.com>, <etreasuny-tdbark.com>, <esterauny-td.com>, <etserauny-td.com>, <etsenauny-td.com>, <etsenacuny-td.com>, <etsenasury-td.com>, <etsenasuny-td.com>, <etsernasury-td.com>, <esternasury-td.com>, <estenrasury-td.com>, <eterasury-td.com>, <etraesury-tdbork.com>, <eternasury-td.com>, <eslnasuny-td.com>, <estenauny-td.com>, <etheasery-td.com>, <etsenaury-td.com>, <etsenacury-td.com>, <eternasuny-td.com>, <etenrasuny-td.com>, <etraesary-tdbark.com>, <etraesurny-tdbark.com>, <etraesuny-tdbark-us.com>, <etreasury-tdbark-us.com>, <us-etresury-tdbark.com>, <us-etreasury-tdbark.com>, <etrasury-tdbark.com>, <etraesury-tdbark.com> and <etreasuny-td.com> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's TD mark as each of the Domain Names wholly incorporate the TD Mark, merely adding misspellings of generic terms ("bank", "commercial banking", "us" or "etreasury", a subdomain used by Complainant), in some cases a hyphen and ".com" generic top-level-domain ("gTLD").

 

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the TD mark. Respondent has not used the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent used or uses 6 or them to pass off as Complainant to phish for login credentials while with respect to the inactive Domain Names, Respondent has not made any demonstrable preparations to use them at all.

 

Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith. Respondent engages in a pattern of bad faith registration. Respondent also used or uses 6 of the Domain Names to pass off as Complainant to phish for login credentials and thus disrupt Complainant's business. Respondent fails to make active use of the inactive Domain Names and has engaged in typosquatting. Finally, Respondent registered the Domain Names with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights to the TD mark based on the fame of Complainant's mark and the content of the Respondent's Websites.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the TD mark.  Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to Complainant's TD mark.  Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Names 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 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 rights in the TD mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 1,649,009, registered June 25, 1991).  Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark.  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).").

 

The Panel finds that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the TD mark as they each incorporate the entire TD mark while adding misspellings of generic terms, in some cases a hyphen, and the ".com" gTLD. Adding a generic term (including a misspelling of a generic term), a hyphen and a gTLD to a mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Svensson Viljae, FA 1784650 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding confusing similarity where "[t]he disputed domain name <skechers-outlet.com> adds a hyphen and the generic term 'outlet' to Complainant's registered SKECHERS mark, and appends the '.com' top-level domain."); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the TD mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).  The WHOIS information of record lists "Petra Eichelberger/Diana Winkel/Anja Hartmann/Monika Biermann/Lukas Beike/Bernd Grunewald/Ulrich Zweig/Kristian Unger/Tobias Fuerst/Jörg Busch/Cristi Aragaki/Torsten Hartmann/Paul Berg/David Pfeiffer/Diana Brauer/Thorsten Kaiser/Daniela Azevedo/Jens Vogler/Thomas Beike/Frank Theissen/Laura Sommer/Marie Johnson/Sandra Maur/Dirk Beckenbauer/Juliane Kuhn/Phillipp Roth/Maximilian Hertzog/Wolfgang Maur/Tim Finkel/Maria Richter/Maria Herrmann/Heike Lange/Leonie Baumgartner/Max Baum/Lena Kuhn/Stephanie Neudorf/Anja Hartmann/Claudia Schneider/Kevin Schroder/Markus Fleischer" as the registrants of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Each of the Domain Names other than the inactive Domain Names (which, absent other evidence can be presumed to be inactive pending use for a similar purpose) resolves or, as is clear from the uncontradicted evidence in the Complaint, has resolved one of the Respondent's Websites. These websites give the impression that they are either affiliated with or are actually Complainant's official website. Furthermore, each of the Respondent's Websites include a login feature that could result in Complainant's customers, thinking they were logging into an official site of the Complainant, providing Respondent with their private login details or other personal information. Such conduct is best characterized as "phishing". Respondent's use of the Domain Names to impersonate Complainant for the purpose of engaging in a phishing scheme to acquire account details or personal and confidential information is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Caroline Alves Maia, FA 1796113 (Forum Aug. 6, 2018) (finding the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the domain name because it used the name to resolve to a website virtually identical to the complainant's to prompt users to enter their login information so that the respondent may gain access to that customer's cryptocurrency account); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. ruth weinstein, FA 1770352 (Forum March 7, 2018) ("Use of a disputed domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as a complainant and to conduct a phishing scheme is indicative of a failure to use said domain name in connection with a bona fide offer of goods and services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or otherwise fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).");

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that, at the time Respondent registered the various Domain Names (in 2023 or 2024), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's TD mark since each of the Respondent's Websites pass themself off as websites connected to Complainant and make reference to Complainant. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register 40 domain names that are confusingly similar to the TD mark and use 6 of them to resolve to websites passing themselves off as Complainant other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the TD mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith as Respondent uses (or in the case of inactive Domain Names holds the domain names pending use) the Domain Names to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme whereby Respondent seeks to acquire personal or account information from customers of the Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Google Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1506001622862 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent's apparent use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a 'phishing' scheme further established its bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).  Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(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 <esinasury-td.com>, <tdconnercialbarking.com>, <etresury-tdbark.com>, <etrasuny-td.com>, <tdcomnercialbarking.com>, <esinasuny-td.com>, <eslnasury-td.com>, <etsrasury-td.com>, <eslrasury-td.com>, <etresunry-tdbark.com>, <etreasurys-tdbarks.com>, <etreasuny-tdbark.com>, <esterauny-td.com>, <etserauny-td.com>, <etsenauny-td.com>, <etsenacuny-td.com>, <etsenasury-td.com>, <etsenasuny-td.com>, <etsernasury-td.com>, <esternasury-td.com>, <estenrasury-td.com>, <eterasury-td.com>, <etraesury-tdbork.com>, <eternasury-td.com>, <eslnasuny-td.com>, <estenauny-td.com>, <etheasery-td.com>, <etsenaury-td.com>, <etsenacury-td.com>, <eternasuny-td.com>, <etenrasuny-td.com>, <etraesary-tdbark.com>, <etraesurny-tdbark.com>, <etraesuny-tdbark-us.com>, <etreasury-tdbark-us.com>, <us-etresury-tdbark.com>, <us-etreasury-tdbark.com>, <etrasury-tdbark.com>, <etraesury-tdbark.com> and <etreasuny-td.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: April 25, 2024