Citigroup Inc. v. Michael Keiter, Inc. c/o Mike Keiter
Claim Number: FA0610000829104
Complainant is Citigroup Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Paul D. McGrady, Jr., of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2500, Chicago, IL 60601. Respondent is Michael Keiter, Inc. c/o Mike Keiter (“Respondent”), 3440 Youngfield St. #207, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033.
The domain name at issue is <citigroupfinancial.com>, registered with Register.com, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 30, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 31, 2006.
On October 31, 2006, Register.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <citigroupfinancial.com> domain name is registered with Register.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On November 3, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 24, 2006 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@citigroupfinancial.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 30, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <citigroupfinancial.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITI mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <citigroupfinancial.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <citigroupfinancial.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Citigroup Inc. (“Citigroup”), is one of the world’s largest financial services firms. Citigroup’s services include commercial banking, checking accounts, savings accounts, credit cards, insurance mortgages and investment advice. Under the CITI family of marks, Citigroup operates over 1,700 branches and 5,100 ATMs in over 100 countries around the world.
Complainant has registered the CITI mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,181,467 issued December 8, 1981). Complainant holds over one hundred additional registrations for variations of the CITI mark with the USPTO.
Respondent registered the <citigroupfinancial.com> domain name on June 17, 2003. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a website displaying links to other financial services companies that compete with Complainant and subjecting Internet users to pop-up advertisements.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
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.
Complainant’s USPTO trademark registrations for the CITI mark establish its rights in the CITI mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”); see also Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO).
The <citigroupfinancial.com> domain name contains Complainant’s entire registered CITI mark combined with two terms describing Complainant’s business. In Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. v. Credit Research, Inc., D2002-0095 (WIPO May 7, 2002), the panel found that several domain names incorporating the complainant’s entire EXPERIAN mark and merely adding the term “credit,” which described the complainant’s credit services, were confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark. Moreover, the Panel in Google Inc. v. Xtraplus Corp., D2001-0125 (WIPO Apr. 16, 2001) found that the respondent’s domain names were confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark where the respondent merely added common terms such as “buy” or “gear” to the end. Therefore, the mere addition of two terms to the end of Complainant’s CITI mark in the <citigroupfinancial.com> domain name is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks rights and
legitimate interests in the <citigroupfinancial.com> domain
name. Complainant must first make a prima
facie case in support of its allegations, and then the burden shifts to
Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v.
Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under
certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the
respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the
burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or
legitimate interest does exist); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200
(Nat. Arb. 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.”).
Respondent’s failure to answer the Complaint raises a
presumption that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <citigroupfinancial.com>
domain name. See Branco do
Brasil S.A. v. Sync Tech., D2000-0727 (WIPO Sept. 1, 2000) (“By its
default, Respondent has not contested the allegation . . . that the Respondent
lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The Panel thus assumes that there was no
other reason for the Respondent having registered <bancodobrasil.com> but
the presumably known existence of the Complainant´s mark BANCO DO BRASIL”); see
also Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l,
D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where the respondent fails to respond).
However, the Panel will now examine the record
to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶
4(c).
Respondent has registered the <citigroupfinancial.com>
domain name as “Michael Keiter, Inc.
c/o Mike Keiter,” and there is no other evidence in the record
suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Consequently, Respondent has not established
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM,
FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the
respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain
name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence
in the record); see also Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly
known by the <shoredurometer.com> and <shoredurometer.com> domain
names because the WHOIS information listed Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a
Electromatic Equip't as the registrant of the disputed domain name and there
was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was commonly
known by the domain names in dispute).
Moreover, Respondent is using the <citigroupfinancial.com> domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITI mark, to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s financial services to a website displaying links to a variety of third-party websites, including Complainant’s direct competitors. Use of the disputed domain name for commercial gain by misdirecting Internet users to third-party websites does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v. Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a financial services website, which competed with the complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a website that offered services that competed with those offered by the complainant under its marks).
The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
By redirecting Internet users seeking Complainant’s
financial services to competing financial websites via pay-per-click links,
Respondent has registered and used the <citigroupfinancial.com>
domain name in order to disrupt Complainant’s business in violation of Policy ¶
4(b)(iii). See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000)
(finding that the respondent registered the domain name in question to disrupt
the business of the complainant, a competitor of the respondent); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent
registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert
Internet users to a competitor's website.
It is a reasonable inference that Respondent's purpose of registration
and use was to either disrupt or create confusion for Complainant's business in
bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”).
Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain
name to redirect Internet users to competing financial services websites also
constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), because Respondent is taking
advantage of the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and
Complainant’s CITI mark in order to profit from click-through fees it
presumably earns each time an Internet user clicks on a link at the <citigroupfinancial.com>
domain name. See Allianz of America
Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith
registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting
Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely
profiting from click-through fees); see also Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi,
FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged
in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly
similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that
offered services similar to those offered by the complainant).
The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <citigroupfinancial.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: December 13, 2006
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum