Complainant is Barclays Bank PLC of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by Pinsent Masons LLP, United Kingdom.
Respondent is Ma Ying Jo of Shanghai, China. / PrivacyP of Nobby Beach, Australia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with RegisterM Corp. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 14, 2012. On June 15, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to RegisterM Corp. a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 21, 2012, RegisterM Corp. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on June 28, 2012, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 2, 2012.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 4, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 24, 2012. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 27, 2012.
The Center appointed Thomas D. Halket as the sole panelist in this matter on August 7, 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 following is alleged by Complainant and has not been disputed by Respondent. Complainant, Barclays Bank PLC, is a major global financial services provider in Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia. Complainant has traded as Barclays PLC since 1985, and prior to 1985 and since 1896 as Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Bank Limited and Barclay & Company Limited. Complainant currently operates in over 50 countries and employs approximately 144,000 people.
Complainant is the owner of a number of registered trademarks in the terms BARCLAYS and BARCLAYS WEALTH. The Domain Name was created in or about September 22, 2011. The Domain Name is being used as a holding page containing a number of banking and finance related sponsored links which relate to competitor products and services to those offered by Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant alleges:
(a) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(b) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(c) The Domain Name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainant must prove each of the following: “(i) that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.” A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name is and is comprised of Complainant’s trademark BARCLAYS WEALTH with two letters, the “l” and the “c” interchanged. As such it is confusing similar with that trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant alleges that Respondent is not known by Complainant’s trademark and has not received from Complainant any consent to use that trademark. The only use Respondent has made of the Domain Name appears to be the operation of the website under the Domain Name as a click-through website redirecting traffic to competitors of Complainant. These facts are undisputed.
Respondent’s use of the Domain Name does not establish a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate interest. Complainant has established that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: “(i) circumstances indicating that you [Respondent] have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (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 (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; 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.”
It is undisputed that Respondent uses the Domain Name to operate a click-through website redirecting traffic to competitors of Complainant. Thus Respondent uses the Domain Name to “intentionally [attempt] to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [its] web …., by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service …” Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Complainant accordingly has established that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith in violation of paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Domain Name be transferred to Complainant.
Thomas D. Halket
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 13, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy