DECISION

 

Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. robel thomas

Claim Number: FA2601002198301

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association ("Complainant"), represented by Gail Podolsky of Podolsky Law LLC, Georgia, USA. Respondent is robel thomas ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <websterbankfinancial.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 6, 2026; Forum received payment on January 6, 2026.

 

On January 7, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <websterbankfinancial.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 January 8, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 28, 2026 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@websterbankfinancial.com. Also on January 8, 2026, 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 January 29, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are UDRP Rule 3(a) and Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e). UDRP Rule 3(a) states, "Any 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: Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association. Complainants make no argument regarding standing. However, Complainants argue that Complainant Webster Bank, National Association is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Complainant Webster Financial Corporation.

 

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. But see AmeriSource Corp. v. Park, FA 99134 (Forum Nov. 5, 2001) ("This Panel finds it difficult to hold that a domain name that may belong to AmerisourceBergen Corporation (i.e., the subject Domain Names) should belong to AmeriSource Corporation because they are affiliated companies.").

 

As the Panel accepts that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between Complainants, it treats them all as a single entity in this proceeding. Complainants will be collectively referred to as "Complainant."

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

i) Complainant offers a wide range of banking and financial services, including online banking, checking account, and mortgage loan services. Complainant has rights in the WEBSTER BANK mark through Complainant's registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,012,979, registered Nov. 8, 2005). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's WEBSTER BANK mark as it incorporates the WEBSTER BANK mark and merely adds the term "financial" and the ".com" gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or permitted Respondent to register or use Complainant's WEBSTER BANK mark. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, as Respondent's website located at the disputed domain name brings the Internet user to a site masquerading as a bank and prompts the user to provide confidential login information. The page further identifies several foreign banks, creating the false impression that those institutions are affiliates or otherwise related to Complainant, when in fact no such relationship exists.

 

iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name brings the Internet user to a website falsely purporting to be a financial institution for the sole purpose of obtaining users' confidential login information. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to illicitly acquire confidential login information demonstrates that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, for the purpose of intentionally attempting to divert, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's WEBSTER and WEBSTER BANK marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and endorsement of the services offered through links on Respondent's website.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on November 20, 2025.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the WEBSTER BANK mark through Complainant's registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,012,979, registered November 8, 2005).

 

3. Respondent's website located at the disputed domain name brings the Internet user to a site masquerading as a bank and prompts the user to provide confidential login information.

 

4. The page at the disputed domain name identifies several foreign banks, creating the false impression that those institutions are affiliates or otherwise related to Complainant.

 

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 asserts rights in the WEBSTER BANK mark through Complainant's registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,012,979, registered April 8, 2008). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has demonstrated rights in the WEBSTER BANK mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues the disputed domain name <websterbankfinancial.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's WEBSTER BANK mark as it incorporates the WEBSTER BANK mark and merely adds the term "financial," and the ".com" gTLD. Adding a descriptive phrase and a TLD to a mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant asserts Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's WEBSTER BANK mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The unmasked WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "robel thomas." The Panel finds that there is nothing in the record to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant further argues that Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as the disputed domain name resolves to a site masquerading as a bank and prompts the user to provide confidential login information, and the page at the disputed domain name identifies several foreign banks, creating the false impression that those institutions are affiliates or otherwise related to Complainant. Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name's resolving webpage. The Panel finds that using the disputed domain name solely to collect personal or confidential information of Internet users, including Complainant's potential clients, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

Based on the foregoing, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Because Respondent has not submitted a Response or otherwise attempted to rebut this prima facie showing, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name resolves to a website falsely purporting to be a financial institution for the sole purpose of obtaining users' confidential login information. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to illicitly acquire confidential login information demonstrates that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, for the purpose of intentionally attempting to divert, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's WEBSTER and WEBSTER BANK marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and endorsement of the services offered through links on Respondent's website.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name for the reasons below:

 

i) Complainant has been using the name and mark WEBSTER since at least as early as November 1, 1995. Webster Financial Corporation, which has approximately $80 billion in assets, is the holding company for Webster Bank, National Association, and provides business and consumer banking, mortgage lending, financial planning, trust, and investment services through 109 banking centers, telephone banking, mobile banking, and its internet website. Complainant regularly advertises via the Internet, television, radio, print advertisements, and billboards along a variety of routes, including interstate highways. Accordingly, Complainant's mark is widely recognized as well known and reputable;

 

ii) The use of the disputed domain name to collect personal or confidential information of Internet users, including Complainant's potential clients, appears intended to phish for sensitive information from Internet users seeking Complainant, thereby disrupting Complainant's business; and

 

iii) Respondent has provided no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name.

 

In view of the foregoing, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant also contends Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the WEBSTER BANK mark prior to registering the disputed domain name, evidenced by Respondent's inclusion of the entire mark in the disputed domain name. Constructive knowledge is insufficient to show bad faith. See 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."). However, a respondent's use of a complainant's trademark in a domain name to direct Internet users to a complainant's competitors can demonstrate actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark at registration and show bad faith. See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) ("Respondent's prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent's use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant").

 

The Panel infers, due to the notoriety of Complainant's mark and the manner of use of the disputed domain name, that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the WEBSTER BANK mark prior to registering the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith per 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 <websterbankfinancial.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: January 29, 2026