Capital One Financial Corp. v. Israrul Hasan / Manhattan Consulting Partners, LLC
Claim Number: FA1505001620198
Complainant is Capital One Financial Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by John Gary Maynard, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Israrul Hasan / Manhattan Consulting Partners, LLC (“Respondent”), USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <capitalonebankclients.com>, registered with 1&1 Internet AG.
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.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 19, 2015; the Forum received payment on May 19, 2015.
On May 21, 2015, 1&1 Internet AG confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <capitalonebankclients.com> domain name is registered with 1&1 Internet AG and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 1&1 Internet AG has verified that Respondent is bound by the 1&1 Internet AG 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 May 28, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 17, 2015 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@capitalonebankclients.com. Also on May 28, 2015, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 19, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the 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
1. Complainant has registered both the CAPITAL ONE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 3,442,400, registered June 3, 2008), and the CAPITAL ONE BANK mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,419,972, registered April 29, 2008). Both marks are used on or in connection with the sale of banking and financial services. The <capitalonebankclients.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks because the domain name contains both marks in their entirety and simply adds the generic term “clients” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests. Respondent is not commonly known as the disputed domain names, nor is Respondent a licensee of Complainant. Respondent has not provided a bona fide offering of goods and services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The resolving webpage contains competing hyperlinks that divert Internet users to Complainant’s competitors.
3. Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use. Respondent is disrupting Complainant’s business in bad faith and attempting to commercially profit from a likelihood of confusion.
B. Respondent
1. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is Capital One Financial Corp. of Richmond VA, USA. Complainant owns numerous domestic and international registrations for the mark CAPITAL ONE and related marks comprising the family of CAPITAL ONE marks. Complainant has continuously used its marks, since at least as early as its 1996 USA registration, in connection with the provision of a broad spectrum of banking and financial services.
Respondent is Israrul Hasan / Manhattan Consulting Partners, LLC of New York, USA. Respondent’s registrar’s address is listed as Karlsruhe, Germany. The Panel notes that Respondent registered the disputed domain name on or about December 17, 2008.
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."
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(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.”).
Preliminary Issue: Consent to Transfer
The National Arbitration Forum received an email from Respondent, which is located in the “Emails” section of this proceeding. In this document, Respondent purports to consent to the transfer of the <capitalonebankclients.com> domain name. The Panel notes that it is under no obligation to acknowledge any such documents. The Panel reviewed the correspondence to determine its apparent authenticity and finds no reason to doubt the email came from the Respondent.
The Panel finds that the Respondent consents to transfer the <capitalonebankclients.com> domain name to Complainant. The email states; “Both domains should be transferred to capital one as we are no longer renewing them. Thanks.” However, after the initiation of this proceeding Respondent’s registrar placed a hold on Respondent’s account preventing the transfer of the disputed domain name while this proceeding is pending.
The Panel finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent agrees to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant, it is prudent for the Panel to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <capitalonebankclients.com> domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
Respondent consents to transfer.
Respondent consents to transfer.
Respondent consents to transfer.
Because the Respondent consents to transfer the Panel concludes that Complainant’s requested relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <capitalonebankclients.com> domain name be IMMEDIATELY TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: July 3, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page