Westmore · UDRP DecisionRbs-lnduk.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <rbs-lnduk.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s RBS trademark, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the domain was registered and used in bad faith. The findings relied on the incorporation of the well-known RBS mark, the absence of authorization or a bona fide use, the domain’s use for a holding page, and evidence creating a strong suspicion of phishing or intended phishing. The Respondent filed no response, including after the Complaint was re-transmitted pursuant to a procedural order.
The timeline behind rbs-lnduk.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind rbs-lnduk.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates how incorporation of a well-known financial-services mark, combined with an unauthorized holding page and credible but cautiously framed evidence of suspected phishing, can satisfy all three UDRP elements. It also shows that passive holding does not necessarily prevent a bad-faith finding and that a panel may order re-notification to cure a possible technical delivery problem before deciding an undefended case.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc v. Michael Page Case No. D2014-1714 1. The Parties Complainant is The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden. Respondent is Michael Page of Vacaville California, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <rbs-lnduk.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with 1&1 Internet AG (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 1, 2014. On October 1, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On October 2, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 9, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 29, 2014. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on November 7, 2014. The Center appointed Dinant T. L. Oosterbaan as the sole panelist in this matter on November 7, 2014. 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. On November 26, 2014, the Panel issued Procedural Order No. 1, which noted that due to what appears to be a technical issue related to a potential virus detected on the names of some email attachments (in particular Annex 6 and Annex 15), it could be that the document entitled “Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding”, and the Complaint (including annexes) was not notified to Respondent correctly and directed the Center to re-transmit notification of the Complaint to Respondent’s e-mail address. The procedural order allowed Respondent a period of ten days to indicate whether it wished to submit a response, and if it did, twenty calendar days to do so. The Center received no correspondence from Respondent in regard to the procedural order. 4. Factual Background Complainant The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc is a company incorporated in Scotland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Complainant was founded in Edinburgh by Royal Charter in 1727 and is one of the oldest banks in the UK. It was incorporated as a public limited company in the UK in 1968. Complainant and its subsidiaries offer its financial services worldwide, including in the United States. According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant has a large number of worldwide trademark registrations for RBS, including the United States trademark RBS with number 77094547, registration date November 11, 2008. In addition, Complainant operates websites containing the RBS mark, in particular under “www.rbs.com”. The Domain Name <rbs-lnduk.com> was registered on July 22, 2014. The trademark registrations of Complainant were issued prior to the registration of the Domain Name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its RBS trademarks as it contains the well-known RBS trademark in its entirety. The addition of the word “Induk” is not sufficient to distinguish the Domain Name from the RBS trademark. According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the name or trademark. Internet users are directed to a holding page which is a copy of the official RBS website. According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Respondent uses or intends to use the Domain Name as part of an elaborate phishing scam in order to defraud Complainant’s customers through a fraudulent website. According to Complainant, Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. Complainant submits that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent no doubt had knowledge of the well-known trademark of Complainant. In addition, Complainant suspects that Respondent is using or intends to use the Domain Name in an elaborate phishing scam, which constitutes bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant proves each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the Domain Name should be transferred or cancelled: (i) the Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel is satisfied that the registrant of record for the Domain Name is Respondent and will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied by Complainant in this proceeding. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must first of all establish rights in a trademark or service mark and secondly that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant has established that it is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for RBS. The Panel notes that Complainant’s registrations predate the creation date of the Domain Name. The Domain Name <rbs-Induk.com> incorporates the entirety of the famous RBS trademark as its distinctive element. Many UDRP decisions have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety. The addition of the generic and non-distinctive element “Induk” is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. The Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In the opinion of the Panel, Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name nor has it acquired trademark rights. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use any of its trademarks or to register the Domain Name incorporating its marks. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark of Complainant. Based on the evidence provided by Complainant, Respondent only uses the Domain Name in order to direct Internet users to a holding page which cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. In addition, Complainant provided evidence that Respondent is using or intends to use the Domain Name as part of what Complainant suspects is an elaborate phishing scam in order to defraud Complainant’s customers through a fraudulent website using the Domain Name, which also cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. Respondent did not submit any response. Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The trademarks of Complainant have been in existence for a long time. Respondent knew or should have known that the Domain Name included Complainant’s well-known RBS trademark. The Panel notes that Respondent’s use of the website at the Domain Name which incorporates Complainant’s trademark in its entirety indicates that Respondent possibly registered the Domain Name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademark of Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a service on its website or location, as per paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Furthermore, the Panel accepts Complainant’s undisputed submission that bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name is further indicated by the fact that there is strong suspicion of Respondent using or intending to use the Domain Name in an elaborate phishing scam in order to defraud Complainant’s customers. The Panel adds that any current passive holding of the website does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith. The Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the 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 Domain Name <rbs-lnduk.com> be transferred to Complainant. Dinant T. L. Oosterbaan Sole Panelist Date: December 8, 2014
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around rbs-lnduk.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.