The Complainant is The One Account Limited, Holborn, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("United Kingdom"), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Name Redacted / Perfect Privacy, LLC, Jacksonville Florida, United Sates of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with R (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 17, 2014. On September 17, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. Also on September 17, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 19, 2014 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on September 20, 2014.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 September 22, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 12, 2014. On October 14, 2014 the Center notified the Respondent about the Respondent's failure to comply with the Response deadline. Some minutes later an email was filed with the Center by the Registrar-confirmed registrant of the Domain Name claiming that he had no involvement with or knowledge of the registration of the Domain Name. On October 16, 2014 the Center acknowledged receipt of this email. The Center further informed the Respondent that any registrant determination would be made by the Panel (on appointment). On October 21, 2014 the Complainant requested the suspension of the proceeding. On November 20, 2014, the proceeding was re-instituted. In the email requesting the re-institution of the proceeding the Complainant requested the following "as the Respondent has clearly stated that he has nothing to do with this domain name and that the domain name has been registered without him knowing, the Complainant hereby asks that the Respondent's name shall be removed from the Complaint once that is published."
The Center appointed Andrea Jaeger-Lenz as the sole panelist in this matter on December 1, 2014. 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.
The Panel has decided to redact the name of the Registrar-confirmed registrant of the Domain Name from the caption and body of this Decision. Attached as Annex 1 to this Decision is an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name that includes the name of the referenced individual, and has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding. However, the Panel directs the Center, pursuant to paragraph 4(j) of the Policy and paragraph 16(b) of the Rules, that Annex 1 to this Decision shall not be published based on exceptional circumstances. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. B / Name Redacted,WIPO Case No. D2009-1788.
A submission from the Registrar dated December 11, 2014 was brought to the attention of the Panel but bears no impact on the Decision. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant offers financial services mainly in the United Kingdom under the mark THE ONE ACCOUNT. It owns among others:
- United Kingdom trademark registration THE ONE ACCOUNT no. 2393129, registered on August 3, 2007;
- Community trademark THE ONE ACCOUNT (fig.) no. 3363835, registered on November 23, 2004.
The Complainant is also owner of numerous domain names including , and .
According to the WhoIs excerpt provided in Annex 3 to the Complaint, the Domain Name was registered on September 26, 2013. The trademarks referred to by the Complainant in its favor predate the registration of the Domain Name. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant argues the Domain Name is a misspelling of its registered trademarks and domain names. It relies on typographical errors made by Internet users when entering a website address in order to divert Internet traffic.
The Domain Name has been used to display a website confusingly similar to the Complainant's website. This indicates that it had been involved in phishing for financial information in an attempt to defraud the Complainant's customers.
Further, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's trademark. Thus, there is confusing similarity between the trademarks, in which the Complainant has rights, and the Domain Name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove that the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are met. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The similarity test under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy demands a direct comparison between the Complainant's trademark -THE ONE ACCOUNT and the Domain Name .
The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant's trademark THE ONE ACCOUNT leaving out "the", adding the letter "l" in between "n" and "t", and the gTLD ".com".
The omission of the article "the" is insufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Further, the additional letter "l" in the second-Level-Domain of the Domain Name is likely to remain unobserved by the public visually as well as phonetically. As the Complainant's trademark THE ONE ACCOUNT does not merge with the additional element to a new coherent term, there is no significant difference in concept either. In the end, the omission of "the" and the addition of the letter "l" do not serve to differentiate the Domain Name from the Complainant's trademark.
Moreover, the gTLD does not affect the confusing similarity in any way due to the fact that it is a TLD which people normally do not take into consideration when identifying a website as to its origin. ".com" merely serves to indicate a worldwide operating business.
Thus, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant is required to prove that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
In the present case, the Complainant makes a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name in order to place the burden of production on the Respondent, as ruled in Stoxx AG v. 247 Holdings Group,WIPO Case No. D2012-1582.
The Respondent did not show any proof of rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Furthermore, there are no apparent rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant has to establish that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent. According to paragraph 4(b) (iv) of the Policy, using the domain name in an intentional attempt to attract Internet users to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's trademark as to the source or affiliation of the website shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
It can be inferred from the fact that the Domain Name has been used to display a website confusingly similar to the Complainant's website (Annexes 8 and 10 of the Complaint) that the website had been involved in phishing for financial information in an attempt to defraud the Complainant's customers.
All in all, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith in the sense of paragraph 4(b)(iv) 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 the Complainant.
Andrea Jaeger-Lenz
Sole Panelist
Date: December 12, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy