The Complainant is National Bank of Arizona of Phoenix, Arizona, United States of America, represented by Callister Nebeker & McCullough, United States of America.
The Respondent is Chawanlux Jaludpong of Bangkok, Thailand. 2. The Domain Name And Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with D, LLC. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 21, 2011. On December 22, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to D, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 22, 2011, D, LLC 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 January 4, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 24, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 25, 2012.
The Center appointed Michael J. Spence as the sole panelist in this matter on February 1, 2012. 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. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant has, for almost thirty years, been offering banking services under the trade mark NATIONAL BANK OF ARIZONA, which has been a registered trade mark since 2004. The Respondent operates a web site under the disputed domain name that provides information about services related to banking and finance.
The disputed domain name was registered on November 29, 2011. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical with its registered trade mark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name: and that, given that it is used to promote services in competition with those of the Complainant, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s registered trade mark in its entirety. The addition of an expression relating to specific banking services does nothing to prevent the disputed domain name from being identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is for the Complainant to establish, at least prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0110). Nevertheless, given that in this case confusion is almost inevitable, and the only use of the disputed domain name is use for the promotion of services competing with those of the Complainant, it is implausible that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the second element of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent must have been aware at the time of registering the disputed domain name that it was almost inevitable that it would create confusion with the Complainant’s registered trade mark. Moreover, the Respondent’s apparent purpose in registering the disputed domain name which contains Complainant’s mark is to divert customers from the Complainant, presumably for some type of commercial gain. This is a clear case of registration and use in bad faith.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Michael J. Spence
Sole Panelist
Dated: February 5, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy