The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. michael roth

Claim Number: FA1911001870296



Complainant is The Toronto-Dominion Bank (“Complainant”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.  Respondent is michael roth (“Respondent”), Canada.



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



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.


Richard Hill as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 8, 2019; the Forum received payment on November 8, 2019.


On November 8, 2019,, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <> domain name is registered with, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name., LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the, 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 November 8, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 29, 2019 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  Also on November 8, 2019, 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. Respondent did however send e-mails to the Forum, see below.


On December 3, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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

Complainant states that it is the second largest bank in Canada by market capitalization and deposits, and sixth largest bank in North America. Complainant has over 86,000 employees and over 25 million clients worldwide. In Canada, the retail bank operates as TD Canada Trust and serves more than 13 million customers at over 1,100 branches. In the United States, the company operates as TD Bank (the initials are used officially for all U.S. operations). The US subsidiary was created through the Complainant’s acquisition of Banknorth and Commerce Bank, and for many years was known as TD Banknorth. TD Bank now serves more than 9 million customers with a network of more than 1,300 branches, primarily located in the eastern United States. Complainant also ranks among the world’s leading online financial services firms. Complainant has rights in the TD BANK mark through its registration in Canada in 2001.


Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its TD BANK mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic term “centre” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.


According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect internet users to a webpage that features third-party links that directly compete with Complainant. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.


Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent attempts to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark. Respondent failed to respond to a cease-and-desist letter. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TD BANK mark prior to registration of the disputed domain name due to the fame and notoriety of the mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.


B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. However, in its e-mails to the Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part: “They asked me to release the domain to them and I did.” And: “I’ve been communicating with dnrecovery who was supposed to do the transfer months ago. I believe the representative Leanne is no longer there and I am not getting a clear answer why the transfer was not completed as I unlocked the domain for them immediately as they requested. I believe this was lost in the shuffle. Sorry, but I assumed that this was all taken care of a long time ago.” 



For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.



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.


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 the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. 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 Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (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.”).


Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.


Rights or Legitimate Interests

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.


Registration and Use in Bad Faith

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.



Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.



Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated:  December 3, 2019



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page