The Complainant is The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services, Sweden.
The Respondent is Ola Femi, naso of Lagos, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 18, 2013. On January 18, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 19, 2013, the Registrar 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 23, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 12, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 13, 2013.
The Center appointed William F “Bill” Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on February 26, 2013. 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 is a venerable financial institution. The Complainant traces its roots back to a Royal Charter granted in 1727. The Complainant has registered and owns the renown mark RBS and numerous trademarks that incorporate or utilize the RBS brand. The RBS mark, for example, was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in 2006. The Complainant operates the websites “” and “”, registered respectively in 1994 and 1995.
The disputed domain name was registered on December 1, 2012. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s RBS trademark. The Complaint asserts that the Respondent has never been authorized to use the RBS mark and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or RBS mark. The Complainant further asserts that the disputed domain name was nefariously used by the Respondent as “phishing” website to trick RBS customers into providing confidential customer banking information to the Respondent. 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 is confusingly similar to the Complainant‘s RBS mark. A long line of UDRP cases hold that the additional of a generic suffix such as “onlineservices” to an established trademark or service mark is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Rojeen Rayaneh,WIPO Case No. D2004-0488. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RBS mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant disavows any licensing or business relationship with the Respondent that might constitute an authorization for the Respondent to use the RBS mark or the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was clearly used for the Respondent’s financial gain and not as a parody or for any other non-commercial use. An Internet search fails to disclose any legitimate business of the Respondent under the disputed domain name or the RBS mark. The Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint or to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Complainant has sufficiently demonstrated that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The screen shot provided by the Complainant of the Respondent’s landing page for the disputed domain name clearly evidences an effort by the Respondent to obtain through artifice and false pretenses confidential banking information of the Complainant’s customers. Google, Inc. v. Robert Takovich,WIPO Case No. DMX2012-0006. That the Respondent’s website is no longer active is of no moment as the disputed domain name has previously been used in bad faith and there is not reason to believe that the Respondent may not revert to previous “phishing” conduct. Indeed the passive holding of the disputed domain name may be considered a form of bad faith use. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition, “WIPO Overview 2.0”, section 3.2. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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.
William F “Bill” Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: March 10, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy