ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Zions Bancorporation, N.A. a national banking association, dba Vectra Bank Colorado v. Hans Fitzer Case No. D2023-2812 1. The Parties The Complainant is Zions Bancorporation, N.A. a national banking association, dba Vectra Bank Colorado, United States of America ("United States"), represented by TechLaw Ventures, PLLC, United States. The Respondent is Hans Fitzer, Germany. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name (the "domain Name") is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on June 30, 2023. On July 3, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 4, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name, which differed from the named Respondent (GDPR Masked) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 4, 2023, 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 amendment to the Complaint on July 5, 2023. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 July 7, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 27, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on August 15, 2023. page 2 The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on August 22, 2023. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a group of financial services companies, which operates full-service banking offices and teller machines. It is on NASDAQ and the S&P 500 Index and the NASDAQ Financial 100 Index. The Complainant owns trademark registrations in VECTRA BANK COLORADO, VECTRA BANK and VECTRA, such as United States trademark registration number 2,354,783 (registered on June 6, 2000) and 2,316,138 (registered on February 8, 2000). The Complainant has used its trademarks for decades and it has obtained federal registration for such trademarks many years before the Respondent registered the Domain Name. Since 1996, Zions Bancorporation, the parent of the Complainant, or its predecessor in interest, has registered the domain name , from which the Complainant offers its banking services. The Respondent registered the Domain Name on June 26, 2023. At the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to an error website. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations and argues that a side-by-side comparison of the Domain Name and Complainant's trademarks shows that the trademarks are included and recognizable in the Domain Name. The only difference between the Complainant's registered trademarks and the Domain Name is the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".cloud", which should be disregarded under the confusing similarity test. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Name. The Complainant has neither authorized, nor given its consent to the Respondent to register or use the Domain Name. The Complainant is not aware of any use by the Respondent, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name, or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant argues that the Respondent knew or should have known about the existence of the Complainant's trademark. By including the Complainant's identical registered trademark as the dominant part of the Domain Name, the Respondent is intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. Using false contact information and/or an underlying privacy or proxy service, may be further indication of bad faith registration. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the Domain Name. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.7. The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark VECTRA BANK. The Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's trademark. For the purpose of assessing the confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the gTLD; see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of "proving a negative", requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant's prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Based on the record, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired trademark rights. There is no evidence of the Respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular but without limitation, that if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The fact that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's trademark makes it probable that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its prior rights when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. Based on the case file, it appears that the Respondent is intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. The non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. page 4 For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. The third element of the Policy has been established. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. /Mathias Lilleengen/ Mathias Lilleengen Sole Panelist Date: August 31, 2023
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy