Bank of America Corporation v. Alvaro
Collazo
Claim
Number: FA0408000319586
Complainant is Bank of America Corporation (“Complainant”),
represented by Larry C. Jones, of Alston & Bird, LLP,
Bank of America Plaza, 101 S. Tryon Street, Suite 4000, Charlotte, NC
28280-4000. Respondent is Alvaro Collazo (“Respondent”), Manuel
Oribe 2028, Tarariras, Colonia 70000.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <bankofamera.com>, <bankfamerca.com>,
<banbkofamerica.com>, and <bankoameric.com>,
registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com.
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.
John
J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on August 31, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on September 2, 2004.
On
September 6, 2004, Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com confirmed by
e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <bankofamera.com>, <bankfamerca.com>,
<banbkofamerica.com>, and <bankoameric.com> are
registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com and that Respondent
is the current registrant of the names. Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a
Dotregistrar.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Iholdings.com,
Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com 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
September 7, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting
a deadline of September 27, 2004 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@bankofamera.com,
postmaster@bankfamerca.com, postmaster@banbkofamerica.com, and
postmaster@bankoameric.com by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
October 4, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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."
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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <bankofamera.com>,
<bankfamerca.com>, <banbkofamerica.com>, and <bankoameric.com>
domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <bankofamera.com>, <bankfamerca.com>,
<banbkofamerica.com>, and <bankoameric.com> domain
names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <bankofamera.com>,
<bankfamerca.com>, <banbkofamerica.com>, and <bankoameric.com>
domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant is a
corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Delaware. Complainant Bank of America
Corporation is the result of a series of mergers that occurred in the late
1990s. Specifically, in September 1998,
an entity known as BankAmerica Corporation merged with an entity of the
successor of NationsBank Corporation, resulting in an entity known as
BankAmerica Corporation. On April 28,
1999, the merged entity changed its name to Bank of America Corporation. Complainant Bank of America Corporation is
one of the largest consumer banks in the United States.
Complainant’s
predecessor BankAmerica Corporation provided a wide range of banking and financial
services in various parts of the world prior to the 1998 mergers. In connection with its offered services,
BankAmerica extensively used the service mark and trade name BANK OF AMERICA to
promote, advertise and provide its services.
BankAmerica obtained several registrations for its BANK OF AMERICA mark
throughout the world, which Complainant now owns, including U.S. Service Mark
Reg. No. 853,860, issued July 30, 1968 (used in connection with “commercial,
savings, loan, trust departments, and credit financing banking services”). Complainant also owns registrations for its
BANK OF AMERICA mark in Uruguay, Respondent’s country of residence, including
Reg. No. 228.245 issued February 5, 1979.
In order to
market and promote Complainant’s financial services, Complainant also uses the
domain name <bankofamerica.com>.
Respondent
registered the domain name <banbkofamerica.com> on May 27, 2003
and registered the domain names <bankofamera.com>, <bankfamerca.com>,
and <bankoameric.com> on June 29, 2004. Respondent uses the disputed domain names to host websites that
offer links to financial service providers.
Upon accessing such websites, Internet users are confronted with a
variety of 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.
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 has
established rights in the BANK OF AMERICA mark pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of
the Policy as the result of Complainant’s registration of the mark with both
the U.S. and Uruguay governmental authorities.
See Janus Int’l Holding Co.
v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that the
registration of a mark is prima facie evidence
of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently
distinctive. Respondent has the burden
of refuting this assumption); see also Am.
Online, Inc. v. Thomas P. Culver Enters., D2001-0564 (WIPO June 18, 2001) (finding that successful
trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
creates a presumption of rights in a mark).
Recently, a panel confronted
a similar case involving the same parties to the instant dispute. In the previous case, the panel found that
the domain names <bankofamerics.com>,
<bankofamericq.com>, <bankofameriva.com>,
<bankofamerixa.com>, <bankofameruca.com> and <vbankofamerica.com>
were confusingly similar to Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA mark because the
domain names merely substituted or added letters to Complainant’s mark. Bank of Am. Corp. v. Collazo, FA
248681 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 5, 2004).
The instant case is not unlike the latter case. Here, Respondent registered the domain name <banbkofamerica.com>,
which simply contains the addition of the letter “b” to Complainant’s BANK OF
AMERICA mark. Consistent with the
holding in the previous case, the Panel finds the domain name <banbkofamerica.com>
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA mark pursuant to
paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See
Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini,
FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words
and adding letters to words, a Respondent does not create a distinct mark but
nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s
marks).
In addition, the
domain names <bankofamera.com>, <bankfamerca.com>, <bankoameric.com>
have each merely omitted two letters from Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA
mark. Domain names that merely omit two
letters from another’s mark have been found confusingly similar to such marks
under the Policy. Therefore, the Panel
finds the domain names <bankofamera.com>, <bankfamerca.com>,
<bankoameric.com> confusingly similar to Complainant’s BANK OF
AMERICA mark pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See Target Brands, Inc. v. Zuccarini,
FA 99683 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 22, 2001) (“[T]he <marshalfield.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's [MARSHALL FIELD’S] mark
because it is essentially the same minus two letters.”); see also MRA
Holding, LLC v. Harem Internet Services, Inc., FA 140600 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Feb. 25, 2003) (finding that the domain name <girgonewild.com> is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s GIRLS GONE WILD mark because “Respondent
merely dropped two letters”).
Complainant has
established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel
accepts all reasonable allegations set forth in the Complaint as true since
Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint. Moreover, the Panel
construes Respondent’s failure to respond as an implicit admission that
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO
Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as
an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names); see also Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Domain Deluxe, FA 269166 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29,
2004) (“The failure of Respondent to respond to the Complaint functions both as
an implicit admission that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests
in the domain names, as well as a presumption that Complainant’s reasonable
allegations are true.”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Clowers, FA
199821 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 14, 2003) (finding that the failure to challenge a
complainant’s allegations allows a panel to accept all of the complainant’s reasonable
allegations and inferences as true);
see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Shing, FA
205699 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that the failure to respond to a
complaint allows a panel to make reasonable inferences in favor of a
complainant and accept the complainant’s allegations as true).
The disputed
domain names resolve to websites that offer links to third-party financial
service providers. Respondent is using
the disputed domain names to direct Internet users to websites that offer
competing services with those offered by Complainant under its mark. It is established that it is neither a bona
fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy,
nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy
to use a domain name that is confusingly similar to a third party’s mark in
order to divert Internet users to other websites that compete with the goods or
services offered under the third party’s mark.
See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb.
Forum June 23, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s appropriation of Complainant’s
mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not
constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services); see also Chip Merch., Inc. v. Blue Star Elec.,
D2000-0474 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that the disputed domain names were
confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and that Respondent’s use of the
domain names to sell competing goods was illegitimate and not a bona fide
offering of goods); see also Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA
198959 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding
that respondent was not using domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or
services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent used the
names to divert Internet users to a website that offered competing services
with those offered by the complainant under its marks); see also Glaxo
Group Ltd. v. Glenmore, FA 203164 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2003)
(finding that respondent was not
using the domain name in connection with 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) because respondent used the
domain name to take advantage
of Complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to a competing commercial
site).
Moreover,
Respondent has registered four domain names that consist of common misspellings
of Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA mark, which is evidence that Respondent is
engaged in the practice of typosquatting.
Typosquatting does not establish rights or legitimate interests in a
domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See Nat’l Ass’n of
Prof’l Baseball Leagues v. Zuccarini,
D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting as a means of redirecting
consumers against their will to another site, does not qualify as a bona fide
offering of goods or services, whatever may be the goods or services offered at
that site.”); see also Gardens Alive, Inc. v. D&S Linx, FA 203126 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20, 2003) ("Respondent's
use of the <my-seasons.com> domain name constitutes typosquatting [of
Complainant's MYSEASONS mark] and such conduct is evidence that Respondent
lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name."); see also IndyMac
Bank F.S.B. v. Ebeyer, FA
175292 (WIPO Sept. 19, 2003) (finding that Respondent lacked rights and
legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because it "engaged
in the practice of typosquatting by taking advantage of Internet users who
attempt to access Complainant's <indymac.com> website but mistakenly
misspell Complainant's mark by typing the letter 'x' instead of the letter
'c.'"); see also LTD Commodities LLC v. Party Night, Inc., FA 165155 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 14,
2003) (finding that the <ltdcommadities.com>,
<ltdcommmodities.com> and <ltdcommodaties.com> disputed domain
names were typosquatted versions of Complainant's LTD COMMODITIES mark and
"Respondent's 'typosquatting' is evidence that Respondent lacks rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.").
As in the
previous case that involved the parties to this dispute, there is nothing in
the record to suggest that “Alvaro
Collazo” is commonly known by the disputed domain names <bankofamera.com>,
<bankfamerca.com>, <banbkofamerica.com>, and <bankoameric.com>
pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. Bank of Am. Corp. v. Collazo, FA 248681 (Nat. Arb. Forum
May 5, 2004); see also Gallup Inc.
v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding
that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not
known by the mark); see also
RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge,
FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)
"to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name
prior to registration of the domain name to prevail").
Complainant has
established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Under paragraph
4(b)(iv) of the Policy, bad faith registration and use is established when a
domain name registrant intentionally attempts to attract Internet users to its
website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with a
complainant’s mark. The fact that
Respondent registered four domain names that are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA mark establishes that Respondent has
intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website by creating a
likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark. Furthermore, upon entering Respondent’s websites attached to the
disputed domain names, Internet users are confronted with various pop-up
advertisements, which establishes that Respondent is commercially profiting
from the use of the disputed domain names.
Therefore, Respondent is in violation of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the
Policy. See Kmart v. Khan, FA
127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if Respondent profits from
its diversionary use of Complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to
commercial websites and Respondent fails to contest the Complaint, it may be
concluded that Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also ESPN,
Inc. v. Ballerini, FA 95410
(Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 15, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent linked the
domain name to another website <iwin.com>, presumably receiving a portion
of the advertising revenue from the site by directing Internet traffic there,
thus using a domain name to attract Internet users for commercial gain).
Moreover, the
fact that Respondent registered not one, but four domain names that include
common misspellings of Complainant’s BANK OF AMERICA mark demonstrates that
Respondent is simply engaged in standard typosquatting behavior. Typosquatting, itself, is evidence of bad
faith registration and use under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See Nat’l Ass’n
of Prof’l Baseball Leagues v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting is the
intentional misspelling of words with intent to intercept and siphon off
traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common
typing errors. Typosquatting is
inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith”); see also Dermalogica, Inc.
v. Domains to Develop, FA 175201 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2003) (finding that the <dermatalogica.com>
domain name was a typosquatted version of Complainant's DERMALOGICA
mark and stating, "[t]yposquatting itself is evidence of bad
faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(a)(iii)."); see also K.R.
USA, Inc. v. So So Domains, FA 180624 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 18, 2003) (finding that the <philadelphiaenquirer.com>
and <tallahassedemocrat.com> domain names were typosquatted versions of
Complainant's THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER and TALLAHASSEE DEMOCRAT marks.
"Furthermore, [pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)] the very practice of
typosquatting, in which Respondent has engaged, has been deemed behavior in bad
faith.").
Complainant
has established 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 <bankofamera.com>, <bankfamerca.com>,
<banbkofamerica.com>, and <bankoameric.com> domain
names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated:
October 11, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page