Complainant is Citigroup Inc., United States of America (“United States or U.S.”), represented by Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, PC, United States.
Respondent is Registration Private of Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States / Suheil Aguilar, ALG, 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 November 2, 2020. On November 3, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On November 3, 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 Complainant on November 4, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 5, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 12, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 2, 2020. Respondent submitted two informal emails on November 5, 2020 and December 3, 2020. Respondent did not submit a formal response. The Center appointed Richard W. Page as the sole panelist in this matter on December 18, 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 Complainant is a global banking and financial services corporation headquartered in New York, United States. Complainant’s mission is to serve as a trusted partner to its clients by responsibly providing financial services that enable growth and economic progress. Citibank, the consumer division of Complainant, was founded in 1812, and serves more than 110 million clients in 19 markets. Citibank serves as a trusted advisor to its retail, wealth management and small business clients at every stage of their financial journey. Citibank has 700 branches in the U.S. and that 18,000 overseas. At the end of 2019, Citibank had USD291 billion in deposits, USD300 billion in loans and USD176 billion in assets under management. In the United States., Citibank operates a large and successful mortgage business, providing loans for home purchase and refinance transactions, and originating USD16.9 billion in new loans in 2019. In the United States, Citibank also received the #1 rating in customer satisfaction across the retail banking industry by the American Customer Satisfaction Index. Complainant owns a number of registrations and pending applications for trademarks incorporating the terms CITI, CITIBANK, CITIMORTGAGE, CITIGROUP and other CITI-formative BRANDS (the “CITI Marks”). Complainant first used the CITI Marks in connection with financial services as early as February 2, 1959. U.S. Registrations include, without limitation: Registration No. 619,815 registered on January 19, 1960 (banking services); Registration No. 1,181,467 registered on December 8, 1981(financial services); and Registration No. 2,424,088 registered January 23, 2001 (financial services). Complainant owns more than one-hundred registrations and pending applications for the CITI Marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and owns numerous registrations and pending applications for the CITI Marks worldwide. Complainant’s CITI Marks have received numerous unsolicited media mentions on an international basis. In addition, Complainant has consistently won numerous industry awards over the years, such as: World’s Best Bank for Corporate Responsibility; The Civic 50 – Recognized as one of the Most Community-Minded companies in the U.S, since 2012; Global Best Overall Bank for Cash Management (Global Finance 2016); and Best Global Private Bank (PWM/The Banker Global Private Banking Awards 2019). The Disputed Domain Name was registered on November 13, 2019 and resolves to a website that represents that it is Citigroup’s own website. Specifically, the home page states “Buying or refining a home? Let our team of dedicated mortgage professional help you get started” On November 5, 2020, Respondent contacted the Center together with Complainant’s authorized representatives, stating, “I already stated the site was never used and I told GoDaddy to completely remove it.” Respondent was advised that the communication would be forwarded to the Panel when appointed. On November 6, 2020,Complainant’s authorized representatives confirmed that the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves continues to remain available and unchanged. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that is has numerous U.S. and International registrations for the CITI Marks. Complainant further contends that Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves (“Infringing Website”) that falsely suggests that it is Citigroup’s own website. Specifically, the site states that by submitting contact information to obtain a “personalized mortgage rate” … “you consent and agree to be contacted by Citibank, N.A.” The website contains other indications of a relationship with Citibank. Complainant further contends that it is clear from the nature and from the unauthorized and willfully infringing use that Respondent has at all time been well aware of Complainant and the CITI Marks. Complainant alleges upon information and belief, that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name solely for the purpose of intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the CITI Marks. Complainant further alleges that Respondent uses the entirety of the CITI Marks’ principal element CITI, only adding the descriptive term “mortgages” and adding the generic word “rates,” which reference interest rates as they apply to mortgages Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CITI Marks, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way and does not have any business relationship with Complainant. Respondent has no license or other authorization from Complainant for use of the CITI Marks. Complainant further asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and has not acquired any legitimate trademark or service mark rights in the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant further asserts that Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to mislead and funnel users and potential users of Complainant’s trust financial services to the Infringing Website to facilitate Respondent’s own gain at Complainant’s expense which is not a legitimate purpose. Respondent has not made any other demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of any good or service that does not otherwise infringe on or impersonate the CITI Marks. Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Respondent alleges that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith to mislead and divert Internet users for commercial gain to its Infringing Website, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Respondent is not obliged to participate in this proceeding, but when it fails to do so, asserted facts that are not unreasonable would be taken as true and Respondent would be subject to the inferences that flow naturally from the information provided by Complainant: See Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0441. Even though Respondent has failed to file a formal Response or to contest Complainant’s assertions, the Panel will review the evidence proffered by Complainant to verify that the essential elements of the claims are met. See section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainant must prove each of the following: i) that the Disputed Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the CITI Marks in which Complainant has rights; and, ii) that 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 Complainant contends that it is the owner of the CITI Marks, specifically a number of registrations and pending applications for trademarks incorporating the terms CITI, CITIBANK, CITIMORTGAGE, CITIGROUP and other CITI-formative BRANDS. Section 1.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that registration of a trademark is prima facie evidence of Complainant having enforceable rights in the CITI Marks. Respondent has not contested Complainant’s trademark rights in the CITI Marks. Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical with and confusingly similar to the CITI Marks pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 says that inclusion of the entire trademark in a domain name will be considered confusingly similar. Also see Section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 instructs that the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Also see Section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 instructs that gTLDs such as (“.com”) may be disregarded for purposes of assessing confusing similarity. The Disputed Domain Name includes the entirety of the main element CITI with the addition of the descriptive words “mortgages” and “rates.” Also, the gTLD extension “.com” is not distinctive. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the elements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that once Complainant makes a prima facie case in respect of the lack of rights or legitimate interests of Respondent, Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating it has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Where the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy allows three nonexclusive methods for the Panel to conclude that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name: (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you [Respondent] are 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 CITI Marks. Complainant asserts that is not affiliated with Complainant in any way and has no license or other authorization from Complainant for use of the CITI Marks. Complainant further asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and has not acquired any legitimate trademark or service mark rights in the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant further asserts that Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to mislead and funnel users and potential users of Complainant’s trust financial services to the Infringing Website to facilitate Respondent’s own gain at Complainant’s expense which is not a legitimate purpose. Respondent has not made any other demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of any goods or services or made any legitimate noncommercial use of the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant has made a prima facie showing with is uncontested by Respondent. Based on these facts, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith in violation of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. The Policy paragraph 4(b) sets forth four non-exclusive criteria for Complainant to show bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name: (i) circumstances indicating that you [Respondent] have registered or you have acquired the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the CITI Marks or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Disputed Domain Name; or (ii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain name in order to prevent the owner of the CITI Marks from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the Disputed Domain Name, you [Respondent] have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the CITI Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product. The Panel finds that Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name to create confusion with Internet users for its own commercial gain within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Therefore, Complainant has demonstrated the requirements of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and 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 Richard W. Page
Sole Panelist
Date: December 28, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy