The Complainant is The One Account Limited of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Eric Brown of McDonough, Georgia, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Mesh Digital Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 19, 2018. On January 22, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On January 23, 2018, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 5, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 25, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 26, 2018.
The Center appointed Gabriela Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on March 9, 2018. 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 subsidiary of The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc. It was established in 1997 in the United Kingdom as a mortgage provider. The Complainant holds various registered rights in the ONE ACCOUNT & design trade mark, including in the European Union (“ONE ACCOUNT Trade Marks”) such as the trade mark No. 002492031, registered on June 12, 2003, in class 36.
The Respondent is an individual based in Georgia, United States. He registered the Disputed Domain Name on January 15, 2016.
The Disputed Domain Name resolved to a website, offering banking and financial online services, which had content similar to that of the Complainant’s website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentious are as follows:
(a) The Complainant owns registered rights in the ONE ACCOUNT Trade Marks in several jurisdictions, including in the European Union. The Disputed Domain Name is a purposeful misspelling of the Complainant’s ONE ACCOUNT Trade Mark, and is therefore confusingly similar. The Disputed Domain Name differs from the Complainant’s ONE ACCOUNT Trade Mark by only one letter.
(b) The Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, and the Complainant has not licensed, authorized or permitted the Respondent to register the Disputed Domain Name. Further, the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, as it used the Disputed Domain Name to take advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill in the ONE ACCOUNT Trade Marks in order to fraudulently obtain personal information of users. The website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolved was subsequently taken down by the Registrar due to its alleged phishing activities.
(c) The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name 19 years after the Complainant was established and began using the ONE ACCOUNT Trade Marks. The Complainant and its ONE ACCOUNT Trade Mark are well-known, particularly in the United Kingdom. The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s ONE ACCOUNT Trade Mark at the time he registered the Disputed Domain Name, and did so in bad faith. The Complainant also asserts that typosquatting itself has been taken as evidence of bad faith. The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in an attempt to capitalize on typing errors committed by the Complainant’s customers who are trying to locate the Complainant’s official website. The Disputed Domain Name was used by the Respondent to launch phishing attacks, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
The fact that the Respondent has not submitted a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant. However, the failure of the Respondent to file a Response may result in the Panel drawing appropriate inferences from such default. The Panel may also accept all reasonable and supported allegations and inferences flowing from the Complaint as true (see Entertainment Shopping AG v. Nischal Soni, Sonik Technologies,WIPO Case No. D2009-1437 and Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM,WIPO Case No. D2000-0403). 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements:
(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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 by the Respondent in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the ONE ACCOUNT Trade Marks, based on its registrations in the European Union, the earliest of which was obtained on June 12, 2003.
It is a well-established principle that a domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trade mark will normally be found to be confusingly similar to such trade mark, where the misspelled trade mark remains recognizable in the domain name (Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. v. LaPorte Holdings,WIPO Case No. D2004-0971). In this case, the only difference between the Disputed Domain Name and the word element of the Complainant’s ONE ACCOUNT Trade Mark is the use of the letter “l” instead of the letter “t” in the Disputed Domain Name, which adds no distinctive element and appears to be a clear case of typo-squatting. The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
Furthermore, in making an enquiry as to whether a trade mark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name, the generic Top-Level Domain extension, in this case “.com”, may generally be disregarded (see Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. KG v. Pertshire Marketing, Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2006-0762).
In light of the above, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states that once a complainant establishes a prima facie case in respect of the lack of rights or legitimate interests of a respondent, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence demonstrating that it has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Where the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Panel accepts that the Complainant registered and began using the ONE ACCOUNT Trade Mark many years before the Disputed Domain Name was registered by the Respondent, and the Complainant has never authorised the Respondent to use its trade mark. Accordingly, the Panel is of the view that a prima facie case has been established and it is for the Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. As the Respondent has not submitted a Response to the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel will assess the case based on the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the Complainant’s evidence.
Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name by demonstrating any of the following:
(i) before any notice to them of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name was in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, even if they have acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
The Respondent has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that he has become commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, or a name corresponding to it. The Disputed Domain Name resolved to a website that tried to pass itself off as the official website of the Complainant in order to fraudulently gain personal information from users (the “Respondent Website”). The Respondent Website was taken down by the Registrar. The Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name did not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services, or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
As such, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its ONE ACCOUNT Trade Mark prior to registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant began using its ONE ACCOUNT Trade Mark about 19 years before the Disputed Domain Name was registered. Further, the Respondent Website utilises the Complainant’s device mark and refers to The Royal Bank of Scotland (the parent of the Complainant) in an effort to impersonate the Complainant.
The Panel is of the opinion that this is a clear case of typo-squatting, and that the Respondent deliberately registered a domain name with a slight misspelling of the Complainant’s ONE ACCOUNT Trade Mark with the intent to divert Internet users from the Complainant’s website to the Respondent Website for phishing purposes.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied. 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.
Gabriela Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: March 23, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy