The Complainant is Discover Financial Services, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 17, 2019. On December 18, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On January 8, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 8, 2020, 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 January 13, 2020. 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 January 14, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 3, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default. The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on February 11, 2020. 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, which has its principal place of business in the United States, is a provider of financial services, credit card services and electronic payment services under the trademark DISCOVER (the “trademark”). The Complainant is the owner of registrations for the trademark in several jurisdictions worldwide, including United States registration No. 1,479,946 for DISCOVER, registered since March 8, 1988, and Panamanian registration No. 48093 for DISCOVER, registered since May 5, 1989. The Complainant operates its website at “discover.com”, which can also be accessed through “discovercard.com”, where customers can log into their confidential accounts and on which the Complainant provides consumer information about its goods and services. The disputed domain name The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DISCOVER marks because the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s trademarks. The disputed domain name The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent has not received any license, permission, or authorization by which it could own or use any domain name registrations that are confusingly similar to any of the Complainant’s trademarks. Also, the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, just as the Respondent, who refers to itself in the WhoIs database as “Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico” has never been commonly known as “discovercreditcardlogin.com,” “hdiscovercard.com” or by any of the Complainants trademarks nor any variations thereof. Finally, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names with either actual or constructive knowledge of the Complainant’s registered trademarks. The Complainant further asserts it is well-established that the registration and use of a domain name in the redirecting of Internet consumers to competing websites constitutes bad faith use and registration. The Complainant further directs the Panel’s attention to a number of UDRP decisions that involves the Respondent, and which have all led to the transfer of the domain names in question. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the disputed domain name registered by the respondent 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. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proving that all these elements are present lies with the Complainant. At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules, or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar (in the sense of the Policy) to the Complainant’s registered trademark DISCOVER since the disputed domain names each incorporate the entirety of the trademark (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7), together with the letter “h” and the word “card” and the words “credit card” and “log in”, respectively. Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element, see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are therefore fulfilled in relation to the disputed domain names. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is clear from the facts of the case that the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark. Given the circumstances of this case, and in particular the way that the Respondent has been using the disputed domain names, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has chosen not to participate in the proceeding, and indeed there is no other evidence of the types of circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy that might give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names on the part of the Respondent in these proceedings. Consequently, the Panel finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are also fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove both registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides an example of circumstances, which shall be evidence of registration and use in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or has acquired the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the disputed domain names, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location. Accordingly, for the Complainant to succeed, the Panel must be satisfied that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Given the circumstances of the case and in particular the distinctive nature of the mark and the longstanding use of the Complainant’s trademark DISCOVER, it is inconceivable to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names without prior knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant’s marks. Further, the Panel finds that the Respondent could not have been unaware of the fact that it chose the disputed domain names, which could attract Internet users in a manner that is likely to create confusion for such users. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith. Also, the Respondent has been and is presently using the disputed domain name As far as the disputed domain name Noting that the disputed domain names incorporates the Complainant’s distinctive trademark and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, that the Respondent has not provided any evidence to support the stated purpose behind the registration of the disputed domain names, that the Respondent has been the Respondent in a large number of previous decisions under the UDRP, and considering all the facts and evidence, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names have been registered and used in bad faith. Therefore, the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy are also fulfilled in this case. 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 names Knud Wallberg
Sole Panelist
Date: February 25, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy