The Complainant is LGT Gruppe Stiftung, Liechtenstein, represented by Isler & Pedrazzini AG, Switzerland.
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org, United States of America (“United States”) / Otto James Nanoh, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 27, 2020. On May 27, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 27, 2020, 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 June 4, 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 June 8, 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 June 12, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 2, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 3, 2020. The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on July 9, 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 is a member of the globally active LGT Group, the largest family-owned private banking and asset management group in the world. It is owned and operated by the princely House of Liechtenstein. As of December 31, 2019, the LGT Group employs over 3,600 employees in over 20 locations in Europe, Asia, the Americas, and the Middle East, and has over CHF 227.9 billion worth of assets under its management. The first member of what later became the LGT Group was established in 1920, and the LGT Group has been using the sign “LGT” as its umbrella brand since 1996. The LGT Group is currently divided into three main divisions: Private Banking, Asset Management, and Operations and Technology. The Asset Management division is operating under the tradename “LGT Capital Partners” and the trademark LGT CAPITAL PARTNERS. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for the word trademark LGT (the “LGT word trademark”), including International Registration No. 641,907 (registered on September 11, 1995), and United States Registration No. 2,188,693 (registered on September 15, 1998). The Complainant is also the owner of various trademark registrations for the combined word and design trademark consisting of the capital letters LGT under a crown (the “LGT device mark”), including International Registration No. 652469 (registered on February 19, 1996), and United States Registration No 2,062,906 (registered on May 20, 1997). The Complainant’s LGT word trademark and LGT device mark appear on the websites operated by the Complainant and other members of the LGT Group under the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) domain names The disputed domain name was registered on June 27, 2019. The Complainant has provided undated screenshots of the website resolving from the disputed domain name, at which appears the Complainant’s LGT word trademark and LGT device mark, and text that includes: “Welcome to LGT. LGT. Your partner for generations.” As at June 12, 2020, and currently, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that is headed “Warning: Suspected Phishing Site Ahead!”, followed by “This link has been flagged as phishing. We suggest you avoid it.” 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights because: (i) it fully incorporates the Complainant’s LGT word trademark; (ii) the string “online”, which is also included in the disputed domain name, has only a minimal, if any, distinctive force, and is not sufficient to clearly distinguish it from the Complainant’s trademark; (iii) most likely the public will perceive of the string “online” as a mere indicator to an online presence of the true owner of the LGT word trademark, and thus of the Complainant; and (iv) the registration and use of the disputed domain name by anyone other than the Complainant or other members of the LGT Group will create confusion in the market and mislead the public. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because: (i) to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain name on the basis of an identical or similar company name, trade name, trademark or otherwise; (ii) the Respondent is known to the Complainant as the former registrant of the domain The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because: (i) the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website that tries to create the impression that it is a genuine and authentic “LGT” website operated by the Complainant or another member of the LGT Group; (ii) a copy of the Complainant’s LGT word trademark and LGT device mark appear prominently at the center top of each page of the website resolving from the disputed domain name, and the overall layout of the website resembles the genuine website of the LGT Group operated under its domain name The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Once the gTLD “.com” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists of the whole of the Complainant’s registered LGT word trademark followed by a hyphen and the word “online”. The Complainant’s LGT word trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The addition of the hyphen and word “online”, which is a reference to presence on the Internet, does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s LGT word trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its LGT word trademark. The Respondent has not provided any evidence that it has been commonly known by, or has made a bona fide use of, the disputed domain name, or that it has, for any other reason, rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The evidence provided by the Complainant shows that the disputed domain name has been used to resolve to a website that purports, falsely, to be a website of the Complainant and at which business with the Complainant may be transacted. According to the present record, therefore, the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The disputed domain name was registered many years after the Complainant first registered its LGT word trademark. The evidence on the record provided by the Complainant with respect to the use of its LGT word trademark, combined with the absence of any evidence provided by the Respondent to the contrary, is sufficient to satisfy the Panel that, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s LGT word trademark. Furthermore, the evidence on the record provided by the Complainant indicates that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant in an attempt to effect a fraud on the public. Accordingly, the Panel finds 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 Andrew F. Christie
Sole Panelist
Date: July 23, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy