DECISION

 

Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC and CE TM Holdings LLC v. maria drew

Claim Number: FA2409002116367

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC and CE TM Holdings LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Laura M. Franco of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., California, USA. Respondent is maria drew ("Respondent"), Hong Kong.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <citadelhktrading.com>, registered with eNom, LLC.

 

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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 19, 2024; Forum received payment on September 19, 2024.

 

On September 19, 2024, eNom, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <citadelhktrading.com> domain name is registered with eNom, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, 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 September 20, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 10, 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@citadelhktrading.com. Also on September 20, 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 October 11, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS

Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that "[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." 

 

There are two Complainants in this matter: Citadel LLC and CE TM Holdings LLC. Complainants argue that while CE TM Holdings LLC is the owner of the claimed CITADEL mark, use of the mark is licensed to Citadel LLC.

 

Previous panels have interpreted Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int'l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:

 

It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.

 

In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark.

 

The Panel finds that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants, and thus it will treat them as a single entity in this proceeding.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it was founded in 1990 and has since grown to be one of the world's largest and most sophisticated alternative investment institutions. Complainant is widely regarded as an industry expert and leader, and its opinions on all forms of financial markets, financial services, and investment vehicles are highly regarded. It employs more than 1,250 professionals who are located in offices worldwide and it manages many billions of U.S. dollars in assets. Its investors include endowments, pension funds, foundations and other institutional investors, as well as high net worth individuals. Complainant is also a leading market maker, providing liquidity and trade execution to retail and institutional clients, and it is a leader in investment management technology. Complainant has rights in the CITADEL mark through its registration in the United States in 2007.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CITADEL mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term "trading", the geographic term "HK" (which stands for Hong Kong), and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain resolves to a website that not only fraudulently purports to be Complainant, but also copies aspects of Complainant's authentic website, such as Complainant's logo. The resolving website also includes a "reserve" widget on its "Offer" page that solicits visitors to provide their contact information to receive "exclusive access to high-quality investment opportunities, personalized strategies, expert guidance, and potential for higher returns." This suggests that the resolving website is a phishing scheme intended to elicit information from Complainant's customers who are deceived into believing that the resolving website is Complainant's the authentic website when it is not. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith by disrupting Complainant's business by passing off as Complainant. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark CITADEL and uses it to provide investment services.

 

Complainant's rights in its mark date back to 2007.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2024.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The resolving website attempts to pass off as Complainant by displaying its distinctive logo, and other elements copied from Complainant's legitimate website.

 

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 disputed domain incorporates Complainant's CITADEL mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term "trading", the geographic term "HK" (which stands for Hong Kong), and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). The addition of generic/descriptive terms, geographic terms, and a gTLD fails sufficiently to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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 Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") '.com.'  These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating "nothing in [the respondent's] WHOIS information implies that [the respondent] is 'commonly known by' the disputed domain name" as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "maria drew". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant presents evidence showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attempt to impersonate Complainant. This does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Edible Communities v. Thoreau,  FA0803001158554 (Forum Apr. 16, 2008) ("[R]espondent's use of the disputed domain name [<theedibleaustin.com>] to pass itself off as [c]omplainant shows that [r]espondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) as well as Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); see also Digg v. Digg , FA0808001220833 (Forum Oct. 9, 2008) (finding no legitimate interest in respondent's use of the domain name <digg-inc.com> because "[r]espondent is attempting to pass itself off as [c]omplainant" and such "actions do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attempt to impersonate Complainant. This evinces bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See American International Group, Inc. v. Walter Busby d/b/a AIG Mergers and Acquisitions, FA0304000156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (the resolving website gave every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant's business); see also Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Russell Miranda, FA0705000993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) (Respondent is implying an affiliation with Complainant, and consumers seeking Complainant's products and services may become confused when encountering Respondent's website). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the resolving website displays Complainant's distinctive logo, and elements taken from Complainant's legitimate website. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names and that this constitutes bad faith under 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 <citadelhktrading.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: October 11, 2024