The Complainant is Dollar Bank, Federal Savings Bank of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America ("United States") represented by Metz Lewis Brodman Must O'Keefe LLC, United States.
The Respondent is D Owner, c/o Ltd. of Auckland, New Zealand / Tulip Trading Company of Charlestown, Nevis, Saint Kitts and Nevis. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH dba (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on April 8, 2016. On April 8, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 11, 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 the Complainant on April 11, 2016 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 amended Complaint on April 12, 2016.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 13, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 3, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on May 4, 2016.
The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on May 6, 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
The Complainant is a banking corporation located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. It is the owner of trademark registrations including United States trademark number 3,539,973 for DOLLAR BANK registered on December 2, 2008 for banking services.
The disputed domain name was registered on January 6, 2016.
At the date of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain resolved to an inactive webpage. At the date of the Panel's review, the disputed domain name resolved to a website offering links to businesses including providers of banking services which did not appear to be connected with the Complainant. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant states that it has traded under the DOLLAR BANK mark since 1994.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. It states that the disputed domain name incorporates the whole of its mark DOLLAR BANK with the insertion of an additional letter "a". The Complainant contends that neither the insertion of an additional letter nor the misspelling of its trademark are sufficient to dispel the likelihood of confusion in circumstances where its trademark remains the dominant and principal component of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It states that it has never authorised the Respondent to use its trademark DOLLAR BANK and that the Respondent has not commonly been known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant also disputes that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair purpose. It contends that the use of a misleading domain name for the purpose of an inactive website (at the date of the Complaint) cannot give rise to rights or legitimate interests.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name will mislead Internet users into believing that they are dealing with a reputable bank when in fact it will direct them to the Respondent's website. While that website is inactive (or was as the date of the Complaint) it contains no indication that it is not connected with the Complainant. The Complainant argues that the Respondent is liable to use its trademark deceptively to attract business to its website in the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Complainant requests a transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(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.
Even in a case such as this where the Respondent has not contested the Complaint, it is still necessary for the Complainant to establish that all of the three above elements are present. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it is the owner of registered trademark rights in the mark DOLLAR BANK. The Panel also accepts the Complainant's (uncontested) assertion that it has used the mark in commerce since 1994. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark but for the insertion of an additional letter "a" and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" which is typically to be disregarded for the purpose of assessing confusing similarity. The Panel agrees that the insertion of the additional letter "a" is not effective to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trademark and therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In the view of the Panel, the Complainant's submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. While it was open to the Respondent to answer that case and to make submissions concerning any rights or legitimate interests it claimed to have, whether as contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise, the Respondent has not participated in this proceeding. In the circumstances, the Panel, having seen no evidence of any rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent's part, finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent having provided no explanation for its choice of the disputed domain name, the Panel infers in all the circumstances of the case that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in the knowledge of the Complainant's trademark and with the intention of capitalizing on the Complainant's goodwill in that trademark by operating a domain name comprising a simple misspelling of the Complainant's mark (i.e. "typosquatting").
The Panel has noted that, at the time of its own review, the disputed domain name resolved to a website offering links to businesses including providers of banking services which did not appear to be connected with the Complainant. The Panel infers that the Respondent receives "pay-per-click" revenues from such links and concludes that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product or service on its website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).
While at the date of the Complaint the disputed domain name resolved to an inactive webpage, this does not preclude a finding of use in bad faith in the light of all the circumstances of the case. On the basis of both the Respondent's choice of an obviously misleading domain name and the Respondent's actual use of the disputed domain name, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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.
Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: May 17, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy