The Complainant is Vectra Bank Colorado of Denver, Colorado, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Callister Nebeker & McCullough, United States of America.
The Respondent is Domain Hostmaster, Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd of Fortitude Valley, Queensland, Australia / D Pontiac of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with F (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 9, 2015. On June 9, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 11, 2015, 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 June 16, 2015, 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 June 16, 2016.
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 June 18, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 8, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 9, 2015
The Center appointed Charles Gielen as the sole panelist in this matter on July 17, 2015. 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 owns several registrations of trademarks consisting in whole or in part of the word VECTRA. The Complainant notably owns the following federal United States trademark registrations: nr. 1604952 for the trademark VECTRA, registered on July 3, 1990, N 2316138 for the trademark VECTRA BANK COLORADO, registered on February 8, 2000, and N. 236580 for the trademark VECTRA BANK, registered on June 27, 2000. These registrations were obtained for banking services.
The disputed domain name was created on June 24, 2004. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant runs a national banking association business at least since as early as 1989 and is using the trademarks VECTRA, VECTRA BANK and VECTRA BANK COLORADO for banking services, at least since the dates of registration of these trademarks.
The Complainant believes that the disputed domain name is identical and/or confusing similar to its trademarks. The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant’s trademarks, and has not otherwise obtained authorization to use the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name as part of a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate non-commercial use. The website of the Respondent resolves to randomly generated landing pages of third party websites with the possible presence of some type of malware and shows a page with links to competitive products and services. The Respondent is clearly trying to divert customers of the Complainant from the Complainant’s website to the Respondent’s website by using the dominant portion of the Complainant’s trademarks in the disputed domain name. The use of identical or similar trademarks in the disputed domain name indicates that the disputed domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant. The Respondent is clearly trying to exploit the goodwill of the Complainant and its trademarks by diverting customers of the Complainant away from the Complainant’s website for commercial gain. Furthermore, by using the dominant portion of the Complainant’s trademarks in the disputed domain name, the Respondent intentionally creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of any of the websites resolving from the disputed domain name.
The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks it owns. Furthermore, the Respondent does not own any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and finally, the disputed domain name is registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant’s contentions are justified and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to the Complainant. The Panel gives the following reasons for its decision. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant proves that it has rights in trademarks consisting in whole or in part of the words VECTRA or VECTRA BANK based on different federal United States trademark registrations. The word VECTRA is very distinctive for banking services and does not have a special meaning in connection with such services. The disputed domain name starts with the letters "www" which are immediately recognized as the usual abbreviation of the notion "world wide web". These letters therefore play an unimportant role in the disputed domain name. In making the comparison between the trademarks and the disputed domain name the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix is usually disregarded. The Panel therefore considers the words "vectrabank" in the disputed domain name to be the dominant element and this element is identical to the trademark VECTRA BANK of the Complainant and confusingly similar to the trademarks VECTRA and VECTRA BANK COLORADO of the Complainant.
The Panel is of the opinion that applying these principles to this case, the disputed domain name should be considered confusingly similar to the trademarks. Therefore, the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name as part of a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate non-commercial use. The website of the Respondent resolves to randomly generated landing pages of third party websites with the possible presence of some type of malware and shows a page with links to competitive products and services. The Respondent did not present any allegations or evidence of rights or legitimate interests he might have in the disputed domain name, such as any use of the word "vectrabank" prior to the establishment of the trademark rights of the Complainant.
In view of the aforementioned, the Panel is of the opinion that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is of the opinion that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel recalls that the trademarks of the Complainant and in particular the word vectra are distinctive of banking services and are used and registered before the disputed domain name was registered. It must be held that the Respondent knew of the existence of the trademarks at the time of their registration, which is clearly reflected by the fact that he uses the disputed domain name for a website on which a link appears to the business of the Complainant. In doing this, the Respondent creates the impression of being connected to the Complainant which is not the case. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy registration and use of the disputed domain name in order to intentionally attract customers by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademarks of the Complainant is a clear indication of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, the Panel finds that by registering and using the disputed domain name incorporating the distinctive trademark VECTRA BANK, the effect is to mislead Internet users and consumers into thinking that the Respondent is, in some way or another, connected to, sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant and its business; or that the Respondent’s activities are approved or endorsed by the Complainant. According to the Panel, none of this is in fact the situation in this case. Such misleading consequences, in the view of the Panel, are indicative of bad faith on the part of the Respondent. The Panel therefore considers the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) to be met. 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.
Charles Gielen
Sole Panelist
Date: July 31, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy