The Complainant is Comerica Incorporated of Dallas, Texas, United States of America, represented by Bodman PLC, United States of America.
The Respondent is K B of Orlando, Florida, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoD, LLC. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 5, 2013. On June 6, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 6, 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 June 17, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 7, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 8, 2013.
The Center appointed Michelle Brownlee as the sole panelist in this matter on July 11, 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.
On June 12, 2013, the Center notified the Registrar and the Parties that the Domain Name registration was due to expire on July 2, 2013, and requested the Registrar to confirm that the Domain Name registration would remain in lock status until the UDRP proceedings are concluded and to state whether any action is required by the parties to keep the Domain Name registration in lock status while the UDRP action is pending. On June 13, 2013, the Registrar responded that it would keep the Domain Name registration in lock status and stated that it was the Registrar’s position to “make the Complainant bear the burden of ensuring that the domain name do [sic] not expire” and that the Registrar does “take steps to ensure that the domain name remains in status quo during the pending dispute.” On June 17, 2013, the Center sent to the parties and the Registrar a message stating that the Registrar’s message of June 13, 2013 indicated that action needed to be taken to keep the domain name active during the dispute and asking the parties to confirm that such action would be taken. On June 18, 2013, counsel for the Complainant sent confirmation to the Center that the Complainant would renew the Domain Name registration if the Respondent did not do so. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant owns United States Trademark Registration Numbers 1,251,846 for the mark COMERICA for banking services and 2,434,031 for the mark COMERICA PARK for providing stadium facilities for sports and recreational activities. The registration for COMERICA claims a first use in commerce of February 26, 1982. The registration for COMERICA PARK claims a first use in commerce of December 28, 1998.
The Domain Name was registered on July 2, 2012. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant is a financial services company headquartered in Dallas, Texas. It is among the 30 largest banking companies in the United States of America. In addition to Texas, the Complainant has bank locations in Arizona, California, Florida and Michigan, with select businesses operating in other states, as well as Canada and Mexico. The Complainant invests millions of dollars every year in the promotion of products and services identified by the COMERICA trademark. The Complainant contents that the COMERICA mark is famous due to its long use and widespread commercial recognition. The Complainant is the registrant of the domain names , and , among others.
The Complainant entered into a Naming Rights Agreement for a baseball stadium known as “Comerica Park” that is located in Detroit, Michigan. The “Detroit Tigers” baseball team has played in the stadium since 2000.
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s COMERICA and COMERICA PARK trademarks. The Complainant also argues that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has used the Domain Name in connection with a site that has a prominent heading “COMERICA PARK PARKING, DETROIT, MI” and a photograph of the stadium and states “We are proud to partnered [sic] with THE ONLY major source of parking that can absolutely guarantee the parking you reserve through us for Detroit Tigers parking and events at Comerica Park in Detroit, MI will be reserved and ready for your arrival or your money back, saving you time, money and frustration!” The Complainant contends that this content falsely suggests that the web site is administered by or affiliated with the Complainant. The Complainant submits that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith in that it uses the Complainant’s well-known trademark to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s web site for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of a domain name, a complainant must prove the following three elements:
(1) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(2) the 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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that the COMERICA and COMERICA PARK marks are well-known. When a famous mark is paired with less distinctive terms, the combination will typically be found to be confusingly similar to the famous mark. See, e.g., MasterCard International Incorporated v. Michael J Yanda, Indy Web Productions,WIPO Case No. D2007-1140. In this case, the Respondent has paired the Complainant’s COMERICA PARK mark with the less distinctive term “parking.” Because “parking” is a term that is associated with the Complainant’s sports stadium services, the potential for confusion is exacerbated. Under these circumstances, the panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s COMERICA PARK mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that a respondent can demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name by demonstrating one of the following facts:
(i) before receiving any notice of the dispute, the respondent used or made preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark at issue.
The Respondent has not presented evidence that the Respondent used or made preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name or that the Respondent is making a noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, or in any other way refuted the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Complainant has alleged that the Respondent is using the Domain Name in connection with a web site that falsely suggests an affiliation with the Complainant, and the Respondent has not refuted those allegations. In the Panel’s view, this cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that the following circumstances are evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or 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 documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent 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 the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its web site or location or of a product or service on its web site or location.
The Complainant has established bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Complainant has alleged that the Domain Name has been used in connection with a web site that advertised parking services that falsely suggested an affiliation with the Complainant. The Respondent did not reply to these contentions. Under the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name 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 Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Michelle Brownlee
Sole Panelist
Date: July 25, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy