Complainant is Comerica Bank of Dallas, Texas, United States of America (“US”), represented by Bodman PLC, US.
Respondent is [1199081]: Privacy Locked LLC of Fort Bragg, California, US. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 7, 2013. On November 8, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 12, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming Respondent 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 21, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 11, 2013. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent of Respondent’s default on December 12, 2013.
The Center appointed Timothy D. Casey as the sole panelist in this matter on December 23, 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
Complainant is a Texas banking association providing financial services and is one of the 30 largest banks in the US. COMERICA, US Service Mark No. 1,251,846, was registered by Complainant in 1983 after first use in commerce in 1982 (the “COMERICA mark”). A graphic mark containing the stylized text “Comerica,” US Service Mark No. 1,776,041, was registered by Complainant in 1993 after first use in commerce in 1992. Complainant has at least 27 additional marks registered in the US containing the name “Comerica.”
Complainant is the registrant for the domain names , , and .
As of October 30, 2013, the disputed domain name resolved to a website containing dollar sign graphics, several links, under the label “Related Links,” to what might be banking related services, such as “Check My Account Balance” and “Business Bank Loan,” and a text entry box to “Search Ads.” 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant alleges the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the COMERICA mark because it is nearly identical, and the difference between the two, namely the omission of the letter “r,” is the type of typographical error commonly made by Internet users. Complainant further alleges that by simply registering and using the disputed domain name, Respondent demonstrated clear intent to disrupt Complainant’s business, deceive consumers, and attempt to misappropriate Complainant’s mark.
Complainant asserts that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is a “parking page” with “sponsored links,” and Complainant speculates that these links are actually pay-per-click advertisements linking to other commercial websites. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In view of the default and the absence of any reply to the Complaint by Respondent, the discussion and findings will be based upon the contentions in the Complaint and any reasonable position that can be attributable to Respondent. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the panel finds that:
(i) the domain name 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 the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the COMERICA mark. The difference of a single omitted letter in the middle of the single-word mark makes it likely that a reader of the disputed domain name would confuse the disputed domain name with the COMERICA mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. A legitimate interest in a disputed domain name can be demonstrated by a respondent through a showing of (i) a bona fide offering of goods or services, (ii) the respondent being commonly known by the disputed domain name, or (iii) the disputed domain name being used for legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. There is no evidence to suggest Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page that includes various links to what appear to be commercially-related advertisements. As such, there appears to be no legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
As for determining whether the website could be a bona fide offering of goods or services, the Panel references the screenshot captured on October 30, 2013 annexed to the Complaint. The screenshot leaves it unclear as to whether the services are actually being offered via the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, or if, as alleged in the Complaint, the links are actually “sponsored links” or advertisements. The actual label used for the links is “Related Links,” which does not necessarily suggest the links are advertisements. However, the ability to “Search Ads” does suggest there are advertisements somewhere associated with the website.
If the links are indeed advertisements, they do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. If the links are for actual services, the services seem to be associated with banking services, which are in the same class of services for which the COMERICA mark provides protection. Respondent does not appear to have any legitimate interests in the use of the disputed domain name to offer such services. Hence, there is no bona fide offering of goods or services associated with the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. There is strong evidence of Respondent’s knowledge of the COMERICA mark prior to registration and use. The disputed domain name appears to have been selected because it represents a potential mistyping of the COMERICA mark. The advertisement of, or actual offering of, services similar to Complainant’s, via a domain name that is confusingly similar to, and a likely misspelling, of the COMERICA mark, is unlikely as mere happenstance. The disputed domain name is likely disrupting some portion of Complainant’s business, and Respondent is likely receiving commercial gain from either the services or ads for services being offered via the disputed domain name. 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 Complainant.
Timothy D. Casey
Sole Panelist
Date: January 8, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy