The Complainant is BKS Bank AG of Klagenfurt, Austria, represented by Schonherr Rechtsanwalte GmbH, Austria.
The Respondent is James H Park of GimHae, Republic of Korea. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with DropC 758 LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 10, 2016. On the same date, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 10, 2016 and October 14, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the Respondent’s 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 17, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 6, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 7, 2016.
The Center appointed Dr. Hong Xue as the sole panelist in this matter on November 18, 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 bank founded in 1922 and based in Klagenfurt, Austria. The Complainant operates in the banking and leasing business in Austria and several neighboring countries and owns the trademark registrations over the marks BKS and BKS BANK in Austria and a couple of other countries, including Austrian Trademark Registration No.278266 for BKS, registered on May 28, 2014, and Austrian Trademark Registration No. 215993 for BKS BANK, registered on March 8, 2004.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 8, 2016. The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered marks BKS and BKS BANK.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name .
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), a complainant must prove that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. In line with such requirement, a complainant must prove its trademark or service mark right and the similarity between the disputed domain name and its trademark or service mark.
The Panel examines the registration records submitted by the Complainant and finds that, long before the registration of the disputed domain name on August 8, 2016, the Complainant had registered the trademarks and service marks BKS and BKS BANK in Austria and many other countries.
The disputed domain name consists of “bks”, “-” and “online” before the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.com”. Compared with the Complainant’s registered BKS marks, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar, because “bks” is the most distinctive component in the disputed domain name and the addition of the generic word “online” and the non-distinctive dash mark “-” to “bks” does not diminish the overall likelihood of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s registered marks. Accordingly, the Complainant has proven the element required by paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts, and provides evidence to demonstrate, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not provide any information to the Panel asserting any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name . The Panel, although it visited the website “www.” to which the disputed domain name resolves, did not discover any information that may show the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Since there is no evidence before the Panel that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name , the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven the element required by paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent made no submission to refute the Complainant’s contention.
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page, on which the primary content is a list of sponsored links labeled with “BKS” or “BKS Bank AG” and a statement that the owner of the disputed domain name offers to sell it at the price of “3800 EUR”.
The Panel finds from the contents of the parking page that the Respondent knowingly registered the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s BKS marks and is making an open offer to sell the disputed domain name at the price of 3800 EUR to anyone including the Complainant or its competitors. The circumstances suggests that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark, or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name, which is the evidence of the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith under the paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. The Panel, therefore, finds that the Complainant has successfully proven the element required by 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.
Dr. Hong Xue
Sole Panelist
Date: December 2, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy