The Complainant is Zions First National Bank of Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America (the “USA”), represented by Callister Nebeker & McCullough, USA.
The Respondent is Domain Admin / WhoIs Privacy Corp. of Nassau, New Providence, Bahamas. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with I Corp. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 3, 2015. On July 3, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 13, 2015, 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 July 16, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 5, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 6, 2015.
The Center appointed Eduardo Machado as the sole panelist in this matter on August 20, 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 is a bank holding company headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. The Complainant owns U.S. trademark registrations for the marks ZIONS BANK (Registration No. 2,381,006), ZIONSBANK.COM (Registration No. 2,531,436), and ZIONS (Registration No. 2,380,325), in connection with banking and financial services.
The Complainant has been using the ZIONS mark since at least as early as 1891, the ZIONS BANK mark since at least as early as 1992, and the ZIONSBANK.COM mark since at least as early as 1995. The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name , which was registered on July 5, 1995, and from which the Complainant advertises and offers banking services, among others.
The disputed domain name, , was registered on June 22, 2014. The disputed domain name resolves to a website containing links to other sites offering various services, including banking and financial services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademarks. It notes that a dominant part of the disputed domain name contains a name that is identical to the Complainant’s registered mark, having only removed the letter “n” in the word “bank”. The Complainant argues that this appears to be an effort to engage in typosquatting, and to take advantage from Internet users seeking to find its domain name .
The Complainant affirms that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant indicates that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant’s marks and has not otherwise obtained authorization to use the Complainant’s marks.
The Complainant argues 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. Complainant also affirms that although in some cases the use of a domain name that resolves to a parking or landing page may be permissible, that is not the case in this matter where the links are to competitive products and services of the Complainant.
Regarding the issue of bad faith registration and use, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is clearly trying to exploit its goodwill and trademark by diverting its customers. The Complainant also argues that the disputed domain name resolve to a website that contains links to websites that could include competitive products and services, which could tarnish its registered marks.
Moreover, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent is intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of any of the websites resolving from the disputed domain name.
As well, the Complainant affirms that the lack of active use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The burden of proving these elements is on the Complainant. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is indeed confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks and to the Complainant’s domain name . The Panel also finds that the mere exclusion of letter “n” in the word “bank” is not enough to distinguish the disputed domain name from one that may be legitimately associated with the Complainant and to escape a finding of confusing similarity to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel, therefore, finds that the Complainant has established the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has alleged that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name.
With respect to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, there is no evidence that the Respondent, before any notice of the dispute, used the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
With respect to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, there is no evidence that indicates that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
With respect to paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, the Respondent has not made or is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
Considering the fact that the Respondent has chosen not to file a response to the Complaint, this Panel finds that there is nothing to suggest that the Respondent has or might have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. In fact, previous decisions under the Policy have found it sufficient for a complainant to make a prima facie showing of its assertion in the event of a respondent’s default.
In view of the above, as the Panel cannot find any indication of any circumstances that indicate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks and domain name and resolves to a website with links related to banking and financial services. Based on all the above facts, it is highly unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights when the disputed domain name was registered.
The Panel notes that the allegations of bad faith made by the Complainant were not contested, as the Respondent did not reply to the Complaint. Examining the evidence provided by the Complainant, it is confirmed that its trademarks have been in use long before the disputed domain name was registered, including in the Complainant’s own domain name. For such reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain name.
The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name would be a perfect reproduction of Complainant’s ZIONS BANK mark were it not for the omission of letter “n”. The Respondent’s subterfuge, commonly known as typosquatting, aims to make Internet users fall into error when typing a trademark on the address bar of the browser or selecting a website from a list of search engine results.
Many UDRP panels have held that typosquatting in and of itself establishes bad faith registration and use in the context of the Policy. See Sahibinden Bilgi Teknolojileri Pazarlama ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Tansel Buyukkarakas Bekir Kahraman,WIPO Case No. D2009-1541 (it has been accepted in several previous panel decisions that typosquatting itself is evidence of bad faith registration and use).
There are no facts set out in the available record which could conceivably justify the registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent.
In view of the above, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Eduardo Machado
Sole Panelist
Date: September 3, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy