The Complainant is Lloyds Bank Plc of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“UK”), represented by Crowell & Moring LLP, Belgium.
The Respondent is Oneandone Private Registration, 1&1 Internet Inc of Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania, United States of America (“United States”) / Danny Iswahyudi of Malang, Indonesia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with 1&1 Internet AG (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 31, 2016. On May 31, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 3, 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. Following further clarifications from the Registrar, the Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 13, 2016, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. On the same date, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint.
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 June 14, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 4, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 5, 2016.
The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on July 12, 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.
The Respondent sent a short email to the Center on July 21, 2016, seemingly asking for compensation and questioning why the disputed domain name should be released to the public. Since the email was sent after expiry of the deadline for response and does not set out any conclusive arguments in reply to the Complaint, it will be disregarded by the Panel. In any event, the Respondent’s email would not change anything with regard to the Panel’s conclusions as set forth below. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a subsidiary of the Lloyds Banking Group, a well-known company in the finance industry. The Complainant is the owner inter alia of the UK trademark LLOYDS TSB (No. 2446729; registered on July 25, 2008), the UK trademark LLOYDS BANK (No. 1286876; registered on May 17, 1991) and the international trademark LLOYDS BANK (No. 1055620; registered on June 8, 2010).
The disputed domain name has been registered on February 8, 2016, and is used to host a blog on educational subjects, which also includes sponsored links to other websites, some of which contain banking and finance information. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
In summary, the Complainant contends the following:
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s LLOYDS TSB trademark in its entirety, and merely adds the generic word “foundations”, which can be related to the Complainant’s business. The mere addition of the non-distinctive term “foundations” to the Complainant’s trademark is insufficient to remove the confusing similarity.
A first indication that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name can be found in the fact that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent has not acquired trademark or service mark rights, and the Respondent’s use and registration of the disputed domain name was not authorized by the Complainant. In the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use its widely known trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could reasonably be claimed.
Since the Complainant’s trademarks are well-known all over the world, the Respondent must have known the Complainant and its trademarks at the time the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. Knowledge of a corresponding trademark at the time of domain name registration suggests bad faith.
The website linked to the disputed domain name seems to contain advertisements and links to websites, some of which are related to the Complainant’s business. As a result, the Respondent may generate unjustified revenues for its redirecting to such a website. The Respondent is therefore illegitimately capitalizing on the reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant also has no control over the active use that the Respondent is making with the email addresses linked to the disputed domain name. The Respondent could be using the disputed domain name for phishing purposes or other malicious activity. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark LLOYDS TSB and the ending “foundations”. According to the consensus view of UDRP panels, the addition of dictionary terms such as “foundations” to a trademark in a domain name is normally insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 1.9). This is all the more true here since the term “foundations” could be related to the Complainant’s business.
The Complainant has thus fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The website to which the disputed domain name resolves appears to display content related to education, as well as sponsored links. There is no indication, however, that the Respondent is called or known as “Lloyds TBS”. Nor does that name appear anywhere on the website. Rather, the webpage to which the disputed domain name resolves is titled “IIoy Education”, the first two letters of which are capital “i”s.
There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name.
Based on the Complainant’s credible contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used to host what appears to be a blog on educational subjects, which however also includes sponsored links to other websites, some of which contain banking and finance information. Such conduct constitutes evidence of registration and use in bad faith, and fulfils the requirements of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Accordingly, the Complainant has also satisfied 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 the Complainant.
Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: July 26, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy