The Complainant is Comerica Bank, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Bodman PLC, United States.
The Respondent is Kang Long Feng, Feng Kang Long, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 2, 2021. On the following day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 5, 2021, 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 March 10, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 30, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 31, 2021. The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on April 6, 2021. 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 financial services company. It is among the 35 largest banks in the United States. The Complainant holds trademark registrations for COMERICA in multiple jurisdictions, including United States trademark registration number 1251846, registered on September 20, 1983 with a claim of first use in commerce on February 26, 1982, specifying banking services in class 36; and Chinese trademark registrations numbers 5339737 and 6260403, registered on October 14, 2009 and October 28, 2013, respectively, both specifying services in class 36. Those trademark registrations remain current. The Complainant also registered the domain name The Respondent is an individual resident in China. According to information provided by the Complainant, the Respondent’s contact email address is associated with hundreds of domain name registrations. The disputed domain name was registered on November 17, 2019. It redirects to a Chinese lottery website. The Complainant sent the Respondent cease and desist letters dated November 19, 2019, July 1, 2020, and November 25, 2020, respectively, regarding the use of the disputed domain name. The Registrar confirmed that the language of the Registration Agreement is English. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s COMERICA mark because it is an obvious misspelling of, and phonetic equivalent to, that mark. The disputed domain name merely adds the letter “b” to the end of the mark. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not granted the Respondent a license or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the COMERICA mark or the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s sole use of the disputed domain name is to redirect consumers to a gambling website. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The COMERICA mark is well‑known and has been in use in connection with the Complainant’s banking services since 1982. The disputed domain name is nearly identical to, and an obvious misspelling of, a legitimate domain name and trademark that the Complainant owns. The Respondent owns hundreds of other domain names, including domain names that are abusive of the trademark rights of others. These domain names all resolved to identical webpages, indicating that the Respondent is capitalizing on the similarity of these domain names to well-known trademarks to direct consumers to its website. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a complainant must prove each of the following elements: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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 in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Based on the evidence presented, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the COMERICA mark. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the COMERICA mark, with the addition of a letter “b” after the mark. This minor difference does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the mark. The mark remains clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The only other element in the disputed domain name is a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. As a mere technical requirement of registration, this element is generally disregarded in the comparison between a domain name and a trademark for the purposes of the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out the following circumstances which, without limitation, if found by the panel, shall demonstrate that the respondent has rights to, or legitimate interests in, a disputed domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: “(i) before any notice to [the respondent] 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 in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) [the respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) [has] been commonly known by the [disputed] domain name, even if [the respondent has] acquired no trademark 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 trademark or service mark at issue.” As regards the first and third circumstances set out above, the Respondent uses the disputed domain name, which wholly incorporates the Complainant’s COMERICA trademark, to redirect to a lottery website. The Complainant submits that it has not granted the Respondent a license or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the COMERICA mark or the disputed domain name. Nothing on that website has any apparent connection to the operative element of the disputed domain name, “comericab”. Accordingly, the Panel does not consider this use of the disputed domain name to be in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the terms of paragraph 4(c)(i). Nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name within the terms of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. As regards the second circumstance set out above, the Respondent’s name is listed in the Registrar’s WhoIs database as Kang Long Feng, or Feng Kang Long, not the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name within the terms of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. In summary, the Panel considers that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent failed to rebut that prima facie case because it did not respond to the Complaint. Therefore, based on the record of this proceeding, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the second element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that certain circumstances, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The fourth circumstance is as follows: “(iv) by using the [disputed] domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location.” As regards registration, the disputed domain name was registered in 2019, long after the registration of the Complainant’s COMERICA mark, including in China, where the Respondent is resident. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the COMERICA mark. Neither the COMERICA mark nor the operational element of the disputed domain name, “comericab”, is a dictionary word. The disputed domain name is almost identical to the Complainant’s domain name As regards use, the disputed domain name redirects to a lottery website. The disputed domain name evidently operates by attracting Internet users who mistype the Complainant’s website address or domain name into a browser and redirecting them to a lottery website. This use is for the commercial gain either of the Respondent, if it is paid to redirect traffic to the lottery website, or the operator of the lottery website, or both. In view of these circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name operates by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s COMERICA 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 within the terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has satisfied the third element in paragraph 4(a) 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 Matthew Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: April 13, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy