WIPO Domain Name Decision D2009-1051 for anonymousmastercard.com, mastercardoffshore.com, mastercardsoffshore.com, offshorebankmastercard.com, offshoremastercardaccount.com, platinummastercardaccount.com

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION MasterCard International Incorporated v. Capital Conservator Group LLC Case No. D2009-1051 1. The Parties

Complainant is MasterCard International Incorporated, New York, United States of America, represented by Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson, United States of America.

Respondent is Capital Conservator Group LLC, Pereira Montevideo, Uruguay, represented internally. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names ; ; ; ; ; and are registered with GoD, Inc. 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 5, 2009. On August 6, 2009, the Center transmitted by email to

GoD, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On August 6, 2009, GoD, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details . The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 12, 2009. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 1, 2009. Respondent did not file a Response to the Complaint although the Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceedings provided guidelines as to the content of a Response, the fact that a Response was due on or before September 1, 2009 and the consequences of failing to file a Response.

The Center appointed Ross Carson as the sole panelist in this matter on September 21, 2009. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

A review of the case file discloses that the Vice President of Marketing of Respondent forwarded an e-mail to the Center on August 7, 2009, the day following the Centers forwarding of the Request for Registrar Verification, advising that Respondent had been informed by its Registrar that the disputed domain names are the subject of a legal complaint under the UDRP. In the letter Respondent stated the disputed domain names were registered with the intent of becoming a future licensee of cards bearing the “MasterCard” brand. Respondent further advised that the websites associated with the disputed domain names only features “free parking” ads placed by their Registrar on inactive websites for which Respondent receives no revenue. Respondent further stated that if it was unable to sell “MasterCards “payment cards in the future, perhaps it would like to create a site(s) associated with the disputed URLs offering factual information regarding offshore credit cards or even “MasterCards” payment cards. Respondent stated that it was well within its rights to set up a site offering factual information. Respondent requested the Center to inform Respondent if the Center or Complainant requires further information or clarification regarding the current state of the URLs or Respondents future plans for them. Respondent requested the Center to let Respondent know the procedure in place to allow Respondent to defend the disputed domain names.

On August 12, 2009, the Center forwarded the Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding and the Complaint to Respondent. The Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Legal Proceeding clearly sets forth the steps in the UDRP procedure and identifies Internet sites providing further detailed information concerning the UDRP process and procedure. The Notification of Complaint under the heading “Deadlines” informed Respondent that within 20 calendar days Respondent must submit to Complainant and the Center a Response. Respondent was informed that in preparing and filing its Response, Respondent may refer to the Model Response and filing Guidelines made available on the Center's website. The URL for the Center's website was provided. The Notification of Complaint under the heading “Default”, advised Respondent that if it's Response was not sent by September 1, 2009, Respondent will be considered in default. The substantive results of being considered in default were reviewed in the Notification of Complaint.

When the Center failed to receive a Response on or before September 1, 2009, it informed Respondent of its default and informed the Parties on September 2, 2009, that it was proceeding to appoint a Panel.

As Respondent was made fully aware of its right to file a Response, the contents of which must be certified by Respondent, the Panel considers Respondent's statements in its e-mail of September 7, 2009 to the Center were not properly submitted before the Panel pursuant to UDRP Policy and Rules and were not considered by the Panel. Some of the statements submitted in the Respondent's letter of September 7, 2009 are in conflict with the content of one of Respondent's web pages relating to one of the disputed domain names recovered from the Internet and submitted in evidence by Complainant. 4. Factual Background

Complainant is a leading global payments solutions company providing a broad variety of innovative services in support of its members' credit, deposit access, electronic cash, business-to-business and related payment programs. Through its predecessors in interest, it has been in the payment card business since 1966 and has operated under the MASTERCARD name and mark since at least as early as 1980. Complainant manages a family of famous and widely accepted payment card brands including MASTERCARD, MAESTRO and CIRRUS, and serves financial institutions, consumers and businesses in over 210 countries and territories.

Complainant owns over 100 United States trademark registrations and applications for or incorporating the term “Master Card”. Complainant is the owner of United States Reg. No. 1, 186, 117, for the trademark MASTERCARD, registered January 12, 1982 covering financial services namely, providing bank card services and United States Reg. No. 2,236,542 for the trademark MASTERCARD ONLINE, registered April 6, 1999 covering financial services, namely, providing a wide range of information and analysis to financial institutions by electronic means in connection with credit, debit, stored value and other payment cards, etc. Complainant also owns United States trademark registrations incorporating the term “platinum”, including PLATINUM MASTERCARD (Reg. No. 2,317,875) and PLATINUM MASTERCARD VACATIONS (Reg. No.'s 2,334,670; 2,356,697; 2,301,796). Complainant is the owner of over a dozen registered trademarks in Uruguay registered for the trademark MASTERCARD or including MASTERCARD as part of the trademark. The trademark registrations in Uruguay, Respondent's country, were registered between 1995 and 2005.

Respondent registered the disputed domain names in 2007 and 2008.

Complainant has registered numerous domain names containing MASTERCARD or variants thereof, including, inter alia, , , , , , and . The earliest of these registered domain names, , was registered on July 27, 1994, long prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names.

As a result of extensive use and advertising of the trademark MASTERCARD alone, in design format, or in combination with descriptive terms is a very well known and widely recognized trademark throughout much of the world distinguishing the goods and services of Complainant. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant A.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant states that as found in paragraph 4 above it is the owner of many trademark registrations throughout the world for or including the trademark MASTERCARD and PLATINUM MATERCARD registered in relation to payment cards and services associated with utilizing payment cards. The trademarks MASTERCARD and PLATINUM MASTERCARD have been widely used in many countries throughout the world and are a well-known trademarks in relation to the goods and services for which they are registered and used.

Complainant submits that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to Complainants trademarks for or including MASTERCARD because they incorporate the entirety of Complainant's MASTERCARD trademark. In addition, the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of Complainant's PLATINUM MASTERCARD trademarks. See eBay, Inc. v. Progressive Life Awareness Network.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0068 (finding that the domain name incorporated the complainant's mark in its entirety and holding it to be confusingly similar to complainant's EBAY mark); Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Kumar Patel, NAF Case No. FA 642141, (finding confusingly similar to complainant's AUXILIUM name and mark); MasterCard International Incorporated v. ZJ,WIPO Case No. D2007-0687 (finding confusing similarity and ordering the transfer of the domain to Complainant).

Complainant further submits that the disputed domain names add only non-distinctive terms to the MASTERCARD and PLATINUM MASTERCARD trademarks, such as “account”, “offshore” and “anonymous”. The most dominant feature of the disputed domain names are Complainant's famous and registered MASTERCARD and PLATINUM MASTERCARD marks. The addition of a non-distinctive, descriptive or generic term like “account”, “offshore” or “anonymous”, does not change the overall impression of a mark or avoid confusion. See, e.g.MasterCard International Incorporated v. Eric Hochberger,WIPO Case No. D2006-1050 (finding the addition of the generic term “offers” to the domain is insufficient to avoid confusion); MasterCard International Incorporated v. Organization Contact/,WIPO Case No. D2007-0691, (finding the addition of the generic term “apply” to MASTERCARD does not change the overall impression of the mark and that the domain name is confusingly similar to MasterCard's MASTERCARD mark).

Complainant further states that one of the disputed domain names, , also adds a letter “s” to Complainant's MASTERCARD mark. The addition of the letter “s” does not change the overall impression of a mark or avoid confusion. See, e.g., Joseph Patelson Music House, Ltd. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2007-0723, (recognizing that “merely adding the letter ‘s' to the end of the word so as to make it into a plural does not avoid confusing similarity,” and ruling the domain name be transferred to complainant). A.2 No Rights or Legitimate Interests in respect of the Domain Name

Complainant submits that there is no evidence to suggest that, before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, Respondent made use of any of the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Complainant further states that there is absolutely no evidence that Respondent is or has ever used the domain names in any legitimate noncommercial or fair use basis. There is no evidence that Respondent, as an individual, business, or other organization, has ever been known by the name “Mastercard”, “Platinum Mastercard” or any name similar thereto. See Gallup v. Amish Country Store, NAF Case No. FA 96209, (respondent does not have rights in domain name incorporating another's mark when respondent is not known by that mark).

Complainant further submits that Respondent is not offering the goods or services at issue. Currently, the disputed domain names resolve to standard domain name parking pages, which contain links to web sites offering the goods and services of Complainant and its competitors. Although some of those links pertain to Complainant, others do not. Using Complainant's MASTERCARD and PLATINUM MASTERCARD trademarks to bring Internet users to websites that contains links to both Complainant's products and the products of Complainant's competitors does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. See MasterCard International Incorporated v. Eric Hochberger,WIPO Case No. D2006-1050, (finding the use of domain , which resolved to a page displaying links to Complainant's services and to Complainant's competitors, was not bona fide).

Complainant further states that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names to unlawfully divert and siphon off visitors seeking Complainant's MASTERCARD websites. Respondent's use of the disputed domain names for such purpose is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names. See MasterCard International Incorporated v. Unicorn Multi-Media, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2007-0688 (Respondent's use of the “domain name to divert visitors seeking Complainant's websites . . . is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name”).

Complainant states that Respondent has previously used at least one of the disputed domain names in association with a website designed to mislead users into providing personal information for Respondent's commercial gain. The site prominently displayed a photograph of a hand holding credit cards and the phrase “Access Your Online Statement of Account”. The website also displayed the words “Account Number”, “Password” and “Bank Institution” in association with text-entry fields where users could enter their personal information. Respondent's prior website is a classic example of a phishing website. Phishing is “a form of Internet fraud that aims at stealing valuable information from visitors to the website” which “has become a serious problem for the financial industry worldwide,” and thus “cannot constitute a bona fide use of the domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.”, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v. Bashar Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2007-0031. Complainant believes this website, and the websites associated with the remaining disputed domain names, have been and may in the future be used for “phishing” purposes. “‘Phishing' is a form of Internet fraud that aims to steal valuable information such as credit cards, social security numbers, user Ids, passwords, etc. A fake website is created that is similar to that of a legitimate organization, typically a financial institution such as a bank or insurance company and this information is used for identity theft and other nefarious activities.”, Grupo Financiero Inbursa, S.A. de C.V. v. inbuirsa,WIPO Case No. D2006-0614; “Phishing is an online misappropriation, designed to obtain users' personal data, login and password information, in addition to various financial information.” Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel and Crédit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Trabaja Jayam, Zeb Fi Tarmatek,WIPO Case No. DLC2009-0002.

Complainant further states that Respondent is also listed as the registrant for other domain names that incorporate the trademarks of third parties, including, but not limited to, , and . Print-outs of the Whois registration pages for these domain names, as well as print-outs of the registrations from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office showing the third party owners of these marks, are attached as Annexes to the Complaint. A.3 Registration in Bad Faith

Complainant states that it was the owner of hundreds of trademark registrations for or including the trademark MASTERCARD registered throughout the world including Uruguay the country in which Respondent is located before Respondent registered the disputed domain names in 2007 and 2008. Complainant states that it was also the owner of United States trademark registrations for the trademark MASTERCARD PLATINUM and MASTERCARD PLATINUM ONLINE before Respondent registered the domain names in dispute. Complainant submits that it's trademarks for or including MASTERCARD were very well known and distinguished Complainant's goods payment cards and Complainant's services relating to the operation of payment card services in many countries throughout the world prior to the registration of the disputed domain names by Respondent.

Complainant submits that these facts lead to the necessary conclusion that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names with constructive and actual knowledge of Complainant's rights. Complainant further states there is no plausible reason for Respondent's selection of the disputed domain names other than as a deliberate attempt to profit unfairly from confusion with Complainant's MASTERCARD and PLATINUM MASTERCARD marks. See MasterCard International Incorporated v. North Tustin Dental Associates,WIPO Case No. D2007-1412 (“Respondent necessarily had both constructive and actual knowledge of Complainant's [MASTERCARD] trademark by reason of the mark's long preceding registrations and national and international fame”).

The descriptive terms “account”, “bank” and “offshore” forming part of the disputed domain names suggest some connection with the goods and services associated Complainant's trademark's MASTERCARD and PLATINUM MASTERCARD and support a conclusion that Respondent registered the domain names in dispute with knowledge of Complainant's MASTERCARD and PLATINUM MASTERCARD. The websites associated the disputed domain names contain links to payment cards and payment card services provided by Complainant or its competitors. A.4 Use in Bad Faith

Complainant states that paragraph 4(b)(ii) and (iv) of the Policy lists the following, non-exclusive actions as evidence of bad faith registration:

(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

Complainant submits it is apparent that the disputed domain names are deliberately used for commercial gain to attract Internet users to Respondent's websites based on a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's MASTERCARD and PLATINUM MASTERCARD trademarks, which satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the policy.

Complainant states that the websites associated with the disputed domain names offer links to goods and services directly competing with Complainant's goods. Such use of the MASTERCARD and PLATINUM MASTERCARD marks is clearly a bad faith use in violation of ICANN Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv). See MasterCard International Incorporated v. ZJ,WIPO Case No. D2007-0687 (finding the domain , which was associated with a website carrying at least one hyperlink to a competitor of MasterCard, was proof of bad faith); MasterCard International Incorporated v. Eric Hochberger,WIPO Case No. D2006-1050 (finding the use of the domain , which resolved to a page offering links to competing financial services websites, was proof of bad faith).

Complainant further submits that Respondent's disputed domain names apparently generate revenue for Respondent when confused consumers “click through” to sites offering the goods and services of both Complainant and Complainant's competitors. Use of Complainant's MASTERCARD and PLATINUM MASTERCARD trademarks to generate “click through” revenue in this manner constitutes bad faith. See MasterCard International Incorporated v. Hector Cancel,WIPO Case No. D2007-1121 (“panels have consistently found that, under similar circumstances, receiving click-through revenue by directing visitors to other websites constitutes bad faith”); MasterCard International Incorporated v. Keyword Marketing, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2007-1138 (“use of the Complainant's MASTERCARD mark to generate “click through” revenue in this manner indicates bad faith”).

Complainant states that Respondent has registered numerous other domain names incorporating the trademarks of third parties, including, but not limited to, , and . These additional registrations show Respondent has engaged in a bad faith pattern of conduct, satisfying Paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the policy. See Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Technology Education Center,WIPO Case No. D2000-0522 (finding Respondent's registrations of domains containing trademarks owned by third parties was prima facie evidence of engaging in a pattern of conduct to prevent trademark owners from reflecting their marks in a corresponding domain name); Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) v Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2006-0510 (registration by Respondent of domain names incorporating trademarks of other parties constitutes an engagement in a pattern of such conduct).

Complainant further submits that Respondent used Complainant's MASTERCARD and PLATINUM MASTERCARD marks in at least one domain name to attract Internet users to a phishing website and deceive them into divulging private information. Respondent likely gained commercially from the illegitimate use of users' private information. These actions constitute bad faith registration and use. Halifax Plc. v. Sontaja Sanduci,.WIPO Case No. D2004-0237. [T] the availability of the online registration pages, and the apparent potential for “phishing” and obtaining information by deception, is not just evidence of bad faith but possibly suggestive of criminal activity. It is accepted that on this basis there is no other possibility than the site being registered in bad faith. See also Grupo Financiero Inbursa, S.A. de C.V. v. inbuirsa,WIPO Case No. D2006-0614 (finding domain name resolving to phishing website “a compelling indication both of bad faith registration and use”); Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v. Bashar Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2007-0031 (inactive website) (“The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent's motive must be to somehow cash in on the persona data thus obtained. This is a violation of the bad faith registration and use provisions of the Policy at paragraph 4(b)(iv).”). B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a formal Response to Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings

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:

(i) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The fact that Respondent did not submit a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of Complainant. The failure of Respondent to file a Response results in the Panel drawing certain inferences from Complainant's evidence. The Panel may accept all reasonable and supported allegations and inferences following there from in the Complaint as true. Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, WIPO Case No. D2000-0403. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly that the disputed domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights.

Complainant has established that that it is the owner of registered trademarks for and including MASTERCARD registered on the Principal Register in the United States of America in relation to the goods and services described in paragraph 4 above. Complainant is also the owner of United States Trademark Registrations for the trademark PLATINUM MASTERCARD registered in relation to the goods electronic data carriers in the form of magnetically encoded cards and financial services, namely providing credit card, debit card, charge card, cash disbursement, and transaction authorization and settlement services. Complainant is also the owner of trademark registrations for or including MASTERCARD registered in many other countries throughout the world including Uruguay, the country in which Respondent is located. Complainant's registered trademarks were registered many years prior to the date of registration of the domain names in dispute in the years 2007 and 2008.

Each of the disputed domain names incorporate the entirety of Complainant's MASTERCARD trademark as its distinctive element. In addition, the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of Complainant's PLATINUM MASTERCARD trademark. Many UDRP decisions have found that disputed domain names are confusingly similar to complainant's trademarks where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant's trademark in its entirety. See eBay, Inc. v. Progressive Life Awareness Network.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0068 (finding that the domain name incorporated the complainant's mark in its entirety and holding it to be confusingly similar to complainant's EBAY mark); Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Kumar Patel, NAF Case No. FA 642141, (finding confusingly similar to complainant's AUXILIUM name and mark); MasterCard International Incorporated v. ZJ,WIPO Case No. D2007-0687 (finding confusing similarity and ordering the transfer of the domain to Complainant).

The disputed domain name, , also adds a letter “s” to Complainant's MASTERCARD mark. The addition of the letter “s” does not change the overall impression of a mark or avoid confusion. See, e.g., Joseph Patelson Music House, Ltd. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2007-0723, (recognizing that “merely adding the letter ‘s' to the end of the word so as to make it into a plural does not avoid confusing similarity,” and ruling the domain name be transferred to complainant); Consitex S.A., Lanificio Ermenegildo Zegna & Figli S.p.A., Ermenegildo Zegna Corporation v. Jil Sander, SML Limited, and Sandy Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2008-1335, (finding the domain was all but identical to complainant's mark ZEGNA).

The disputed domain names add only non-distinctive terms such as “account”, “offshore” and “anonymous” to Complainant's MASTERCARD and PLATINUM MASTERCARD trademarks. The most dominant feature of the disputed domain names are Complainant's very well known and registered trademarks MASTERCARD and PLATINUM MASTERCARD. The addition of a non-distinctive, descriptive or generic term like “account”, “offshore” or “anonymous”, does not change the overall impression of a mark or avoid confusion. See, e.g., MasterCard International Incorporated v. Eric Hochberger,WIPO Case No. D2006-1050 (finding the addition of the generic term “offers” to the domain is insufficient to avoid confusion); MasterCard International Incorporated v. Organization Contact/,WIPO Case No. D2007-0691, (finding the addition of the generic term “apply” to MASTERCARD does not change the overall impression of the mark and that the domain is confusingly similar to MasterCard's MASTERCARD mark).

The inclusion of the top level domain descriptor “. com” in the domain names in dispute does not affect a finding of confusingly similar. WIPO Administrative Panels have repeatedly held that the specific top level of the domain name such as “.org,” “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood & Wilson, Sr.,WIPO Case No. D2000-1525 holding that confusing similarity under the Policy is decided upon the inclusion of a trademark in the domain name; and Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,WIPO Case No. D2000-0429 finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).

The Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the disputed domain names comprised of Complainant's trademark MASTERCARD or PLATINUM MASTERCARD in combination with non-distinctive terms such as “account”, “offshore” and “anonymous” and the top level domain descriptor “.com” are confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks for and including MASTERCARD or PLATINUM MASTERCARD. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy Complainant must prove that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names in dispute.

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has never been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's registered trademark or any trademarks confusingly similar thereto.

Respondent, as recently as June 1, 2009, caused the disputed domain name, to resolved to the website for the “CSC Network”. The site prominently displayed a photograph of a hand holding credit cards and the phrase “Access Your Online Statement of Account”. The website also displayed the words “Account Number”, “Password” and “Bank Institution” in association with text-entry fields where users were invited to enter their personal information. Respondent's prior website is an example of a phishing website. Phishing is “a form of Internet fraud that aims at stealing valuable information from visitors to the website” which “has become a serious problem for the financial industry worldwide,” and thus “cannot constitute a bona fide use of the domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.” Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v. Bashar Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2007-0031. Respondents operation of the prior website inviting Internet users to provide Respondent with personal financial information shows bad faith use of the disputed domain name . Blocking by Respondent of access to prior webpages associated with the other disputed domain names leads to the inference that the prior webpages associated with the remaining disputed domain names were also previously operated as “phishing” sites. “Phishing” sites show bad faith use of a disputed domain name contrary to use supporting legitimate or bona fide use of a domain name.

Currently, the disputed domain names resolve to domain name parking pages provided by the Registrar GoD, Inc., which contain links to web sites offering the goods and services of Complainant and its competitors. Respondent chose to permit the Registrar to utilize web pages displaying links to Complainant and its competitors in association with the domain names in dispute. The parking pages currently associated with the domain names in dispute created by the Registrar GoD, Inc. provide no information relating to Respondent, its purpose or its business if any. The parking pages currently associated with the domain names in dispute do not support a finding of a bona fide use by Respondent of the disputed domain names.

It is difficult for a complainant to prove the negative that a respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in a domain name in dispute. Respondent was given the opportunity by way of reply to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in dispute pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. Previous decisions under the UDRP have found it sufficient for a complainant to make a prima facie showing that a respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in dispute. Once this showing is made, the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Here, Respondent did not file a Response nor avail itself of the benefits of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.

The Panel finds that Complainant has proven on a balance of probabilities that

Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy Complainant must prove that the domain names in dispute have been registered and used in bad faith. C. 1 Registered in Bad Faith

Complainant has established that it is the owner of registered trademarks for and including MASTERCARD registered on the Principal Register in the United States of America in relation to the goods and services described in paragraph 4 above. Complainant is also the owner of United States Trademark Registrations for the trademark PLATINUM MASTERCARD registered in relation to the following goods, electronic data carriers in the form of magnetically encoded cards and financial services, namely providing credit card, debit card, charge card, cash disbursement, and transaction authorization and settlement services. Complainant is also the owner of trademark registrations for or including MASTERCARD registered in many other countries throughout the world including Uruguay, the country in which Respondent is located. Complainant's registered trademarks were registered many years prior to the date of registration of the disputed domain names in the years 2007 and 2008.

Each of the disputed domain names incorporate the entirety of Complainant's MASTERCARD trademark as its distinctive element. In addition, the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of Complainant's PLATINUM MASTERCARD trademark. Complainant has established that as a result of extensive use of these trademarks in association with payment cards and transaction authorization and settlement services for many years prior to the registration of the disputed domain names it's trademarks were well known in the United States of America and other countries prior to registration of the disputed domain names in 2007 and 2008. The disputed domain names were confusingly similar to Complainants trademarks at their respective dates of registration for the reasons expressed above.

The non-distinctive terms “account”, “offshore” and “banking” used in association with Complainant's trademarks MASTERCARD and PLATINUM MASTERCARD as part of the disputed domain names all suggest some connection with financial services the field in which Complainant is involved.

Respondent has registered numerous other domain names relating to services in the financial field incorporating the trademarks of third parties, including, but not limited to, , and .

It is difficult to conceive how Respondent could have created the domain names in dispute including descriptive terms related to Complainant's goods and services without prior knowledge of Complainant's registered trademarks for and including MASTERCARD and PLATINUM MASTERCARD and the goods and services which Complainant advertised and offered to the public in association with the trademarks. Respondent was invited to file a Response. Respondent's failure to explain any reason for choosing the disputed domain names strengthens the Panel's inference that Respondent registered the domain name in dispute with knowledge of Complainant's trademarks which were well known in the United States of America and many other countries at the date of registration of the domain names in dispute in 2007 and 2008.

The Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith. C.2. Domain Name Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that using a domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to your website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of a respondent's website constitutes evidence of bad faith use of a domain name.

The advertising pages currently linked to the domain names in dispute are generated by the Registrar, GoD, Inc., with the permission of Respondent, but without any information relating to Respondent, its purpose, business or proposed business if any. Respondent's allowance of use of the domain names in dispute which are confusingly similar to Complainant's registered and well known trademarks for or including MASTERCARD and PLATINUM MASTERCARD as the distinctive element by the Registrar enables the Registrar to draw Internet users to the website for profit by misleading Internet users associating the domain name in dispute with Complainant. Previous UDRP panels have recognized that it is bad faith for a respondent to intend to attract Internet users “for commercial gain” whether the gain is derived by the respondent itself or a third party advertiser. Villeroly & Boch AG v. Mario Pingerna,WIPO Case No. D2007-1912.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a number of circumstances that constitute bad faith registration and use. Many UDRP decisions have found that the circumstances referred to in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are not an exhaustive list. In addition to those circumstances, a panel is able to draw inferences of bad faith registration or use in light of the facts and circumstances of a case. The passive holding of a domain name registration can, in certain circumstances, constitute a domain name use in bad faith. Guerlain S.A. v. Peikang, WIPO Case No. D2000-0055. Having regard to the registrations and extent of use of Complainant's well known trademarks for or including MASTERCARD and PLATINUM MASTERCARD, Respondent's passive holding of the domain names in dispute which are confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks MASTERCARD and PLATINUM MASTERCARD constitutes bad faith use of the disputed domain names. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.

Complainant has established registered trademark rights in the trademark MASTERCARD and PLATINUM MASTERCARD and trademarks incorporating these trademarks as the distinctive element. Based on the evidence submitted by Complainant and absence of any evidence submitted by Respondent the Panel infers that the Respondent does not have any legitimate commercial or bona fide intended use of the domain name and that it was simply “parked” which amounts to bad faith. Turkcell Iletisim Hizmetleri A.S. v. Tolga Murtezoaglau, WIPO Case No. D2008-1589.

Respondent used the disputed domain name as recently as June 1, 2009 to attract Internet users to a phishing website and deceive them into divulging private information. Respondent likely gained commercially from the illegitimate use of users' private information. These actions constitute bad faith registration and use. Halifax Plc. v. Sontaja Sanduci,WIPO Case No. D2004-0237. [T] the availability of the online registration pages, and the apparent potential for “phishing” and obtaining information by deception, is not just evidence of bad faith but possibly suggestive of criminal activity. It is accepted that on this basis there is no other possibility than the site being registered in bad faith.” See also Grupo Financiero Inbursa, S.A. de C.V. v. inbuirsa,WIPO Case No. D2006-0614 (finding domain name resolving to phishing website “a compelling indication both of bad faith registration and use”); Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v. Bashar Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2007-0031 (inactive website) (“The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent's motive must be to somehow cash in on the persona data thus obtained. This is a violation of the bad faith registration and use provisions of the Policy at paragraph 4(b)(iv).”).

Respondent has registered numerous other domain names incorporating the trademarks of third parties, including, but not limited to, , and . These additional registrations show Respondent has engaged in a bad faith pattern of conduct, satisfying paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the policy. See Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Technology Education Center,WIPO Case No. D2000-0522 (finding Respondent's registrations of domain names containing trademarks owned by third parties was prima facie evidence of engaging in a pattern of conduct to prevent trademark owners from reflecting their marks in a corresponding domain name); Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2006-0510 (registration by Respondent of domain names incorporating trademarks of other parties constitutes an engagement in a pattern of such conduct).

The Panel finds that Complainant has proven on a balance of probabilities that Respondent has used the disputed domain names in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(ii) and paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and that Complaint satisfies the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain names, ; ; ; ; ; and be transferred to Complainant.

Ross Carson
Sole Panelist

Dated: October 4, 2009

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy