Complainant is ZB, N.A., dba California Bank & Trust of Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America ("United States") represented by Callister Nebeker & McCullough, United States.
Respondent is Whois Protect Service of Mumbai, India / Venkateshwara Distributor Private Limited. of Mumbai, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tirupati Domains and Hosting Pvt Ltd. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 10, 2016. On March 11, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 16, 2016, 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 Complainant on March 16, 2016 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on March 18, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 21, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 10, 2016. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on April 11, 2016.
The Center appointed Erica Aoki as the sole panelist in this matter on April 15, 2016. 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 has been using its trademarks: CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST; CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST (with design) and CALBANK NETWORK in commerce since at least as early as 1998 and respectively obtained federal registrations for the mentioned trademarks on January 10, 2006, August 14, 2001 and September 10, 2002.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 14, 2006. The disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click site with links to banking services. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant has done business under the name "California Bank & Trust" since October 1, 1998.
Complainant is the owner of the trademarks CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST, CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST (with design) and CALBANK NETWORK registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office that are in use by Complainant and registered for "banking services" and "providing financial information via a global computer network; providing electronic banking services", respectively.
Zions Bancorporation, the parent of Complainant, has been the registrant of the domain name since July 13, 1998. Complainant advertises and offers its banking services under this domain name.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name includes a portion of Complainant's marks, with the letters "www," and the word "California" instead of "Cal" as in two of Complainant's trademarks, which should be disregarded in the assessment of identity or confusing similarity.
Furthermore, Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in relation to the disputed domain name. Respondent is not affiliated or related to Complainant in any way, or licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's marks in connection with a website or for any other purpose. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, is not generally known by the disputed domain name, and has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in that name or mark.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name leads to a website that provides direct or indirect links to various banking related and other search queries, which identify services that are identical or similar to the type of services offered by Complainant under its registered marks. The use of a domain name corresponding to a registered trademark that has the primary purpose of disrupting the business of a complainant cannot be considered either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Finally, Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In the Panel's view, Complainant has satisfied the requirements specified under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in respect of which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the credible assertions and evidence presented by Complainant, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights, as required under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's registered trademarks CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST and CALBANK NETWORK marks.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds the following on the record in this proceeding:
- Respondent is in default and thus has made no affirmative attempt to show any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name;
- Respondent's knowledge of Complainant's right is presumed since CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST, CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST (with design) and CALBANK NETWORK are famous trademarks;
- Respondent is in no way connected with Complainant and has no authorization to use any of Complainant's trademarks; and
- There is no evidence that Respondent is or was commonly known by the disputed domain name as an individual, business or other organization.
Thus, in the Panel's view, Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. There is no evidence of Respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Further, the Panel notes that Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use activity.
The Panel therefore finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant contends that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
In the Panel's view, there is no doubt that Respondent was aware of Complainant's rights in the CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST, CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST (with design) and CALBANK NETWORK marks at the time the disputed domain name was registered, indicating that such registration was made in bad faith.
The disputed domain name directs consumers, either directly or indirectly, to a website that references various banking terms and links to financial services, and likely confuses consumers as to the source of the goods being offered under Complainant's marks. The Panel finds that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, under paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Complainant.
Erica Aoki
Sole Panelist
Date: April 20, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy