The Complainant is Royal Bank of Canada – Banque Royale du Canada, Canada, represented by Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, Canada.
The Respondent is Privacy Administrator, Anonymize, Inc., United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 15, 2020. On October 16, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 16, 2020, 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 October 22, 2020. Through the Registrar, the Respondent enquired whether the Complainant wished to settle. The Complaint did not wish to settle. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 11, 2020. The Respondent did not submit a formal response. Accordingly, the Center informed the Parties that it would proceed to appoint a panel. The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on November 26, 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 one of Canada’s largest banks and engages in financial operations internationally. The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations, in various territories worldwide, for trademarks including the term “rbc” or “royal bank”. Those registrations include, for example, Canada trademark number TMA369496 for the word mark RBC registered on June 15, 1990 and Canada trademark number TMA356947 for the word mark ROYAL BANK registered on June 9, 1989. The disputed domain name was registered on April 23, 2009. The disputed domain name has resolved to a website at “www.rbcroylbank.com”, which offers links to banking and related services. The disputed domain name has also been offered for sale on Sedo.com as a “premium domain”, priced at USD 500. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that it is a global financial institution with over 86,000 employees and 17 million customers in countries around the world. It provides evidence of over 600 trademark registrations including the term RBC and states that it has used the mark ROYAL BANK since 1901. As a result of these matters, it contends that both its marks RBC and ROYAL BANK are famous. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights. It states that the disputed domain name comprises the whole of its trademarks RBC and ROYAL BANK in combination, although in the latter case the letter “a” has been omitted in an obvious attempt at “typosquatting”. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that it has never authorized the Respondent to use its RBC or ROYAL BANK trademarks, that the Respondent has not commonly been known by those names, and that the Respondent is making neither bona fide commercial use nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. On the contrary, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in a misleading manner, in particular to trade unfairly on the notoriety of the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. It relies first on the Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain name for USD 500, which it contends exceeds its actual costs of registration (paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy). The Complainant further contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant’s business, since its website includes pay-per-click links including links to the Complainant’s competitors. Thirdly, the Complainant submits that the Respondent is misleadingly using the disputed domain name to attract visitors to its website for commercial gain (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). The Complainant contends that by using a domain name that incorporates both the Complainant’s trademarks, the Respondent is plainly implying that its website is in some way affiliated with the Complainant. The Complainant also relies on the typographical error in the disputed domain name as evidence of the Respondent’s obvious bad faith at the time of registration. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for both RBC and ROYAL BANK. The disputed domain name In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not filed a formal Response in this proceeding and has not submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. There being no other evidence before the Panel of any such rights or legitimate interests, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The disputed domain name comprises a combination of the Complainant’s trademarks RBC and ROYAL BANK without further adornment, although in the latter case the letter “a” has been omitted. The Panel accepts on the evidence that both these trademarks are widely known by the public to refer to the Complainant and its services. The Respondent has offered no answer to the Complainant’s submissions and the Panel can envisage no reason for the Respondent to have registered this combination of terms, together with the omitted letter, other than in an attempt to target the Complainant’s registered trademarks and to “typosquat” as the Complainant has alleged. Further, the Panel finds that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website which comprises pay-per-click links relating to banking and connected services. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s evidence that these include services offered by the Complainant’s competitors. In all the circumstances, there can be no serious doubt that the Respondent selected the disputed domain name with the intention of impersonating the Complainant and of attracting Internet users to the Respondent’s website by misrepresenting a connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds in particular that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has sought to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). The Panel therefore 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, Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: December 3, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy