Westmore · UDRP DecisionComericaalerts.com + 4 more domains
The Panel ordered transfer of all five disputed domain names. It found each domain confusingly similar to the COMERICA mark because the addition of the prefix “my” and terms such as “alert,” “alerts,” “message,” and “msg” did not avoid confusing similarity. The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and the registration of a series of domains combining the well-known mark with attention-drawing or alarming terms supported an inference of bad faith. Their passive holding also constituted bad-faith use in the circumstances.
The timeline behind comericaalerts.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 comericaalerts.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.
The decision illustrates how a coordinated set of inactive domains can satisfy the UDRP where each domain fully incorporates a well-known financial-services mark and adds alert- or message-oriented terminology. The Panel’s bad-faith conclusion rested on the combined circumstances rather than active website content: longstanding rights, the parties’ United States connection, the series of registrations, the nature of the added terms, and passive holding.
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 Comerica Bank v. Rita Rodriguez Case No. D2016-0417 1. The Parties The Complainant is Comerica Bank of Dallas, Texas, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Bodman PLC, United States. The Respondent is Rita Rodriguez of Faribault, Minnesota, United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <comericaalerts.com>, <mycomericaalert.com>, <mycomericaalerts.com>, <mycomericamessage.com> and <mycomericamsg.com> are registered with Melbourne IT Ltd (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 1, 2016. On March 1, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On March 2, 2016, 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 proceeding commenced on March 15, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 4, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 5, 2016. The Center appointed William F “Bill” Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on April 14, 2016. 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 substantial financial services company headquartered in Dallas, Texas, United States, with offices throughout the continental United States. The Complainant is the owner of numerous COMERICA trademark and service mark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the first of which dates back to 1982 (the “Mark”). The Complainant has registered and is using numerous domain names incorporating the Mark including <comerica.com>. The disputed domain names were registered on January 7, 2016 and do not resolve to active websites. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Mark. The disputed domain names are composed by wholly incorporating the Complainant’s distinctive Mark with the addition of the prefix “my” (or no prefix at all) and one of the following suffixes: “alerts”, “alert”, “msg”, or “message”. The Complainant further asserts the Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the Mark or the disputed domain names as there is no evidence of any legitimate business activity of the Respondent prior to registration and use of the disputed domain names. Further, the Complainant asserts that the Complainant has not authorized the use of the Mark by the Respondent. The Complainant also asserts the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds the disputed domain names are each confusingly similar to the Mark. The use of a generic suffix or the bracketing of the Mark with generic suffixes and prefixes is insufficient to avoid confusing similarity . Comerica Bank v. Will Rote , WIPO Case No. D2016-0419 (transferring <my-comerica-alert.com>), Mastercard International Incorporated v. Dolancer Outsourcing, Inc ., WIPO Case No. D2012-0619 (transferring <my-mastercard.info>); Societé Française du Radiotelephone – SFR v. Tobadoros Musicania , WIPO Case No. D2011-0815 (transferring <alert-inforamtion-sfr.com>). The Complainant has met its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Complainant has specifically denied any license or authorization provided to the Respondent to use the Mark or to register it in the disputed domain names. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Respondent had any legitimate business before its utilization of the disputed domain names. Finally, the Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint providing any evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the Mark or the disputed domain names. Absent any reply from the Respondent, the Complainant has meet its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Comerica Bank v. Will Rote , WIPO Case No. D2016-0419 (transferring <my-comerica-alert.com>). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Mark is well known in the United States, and the Respondent is listed with the Registrar as having a United States address. It strains credulity to believe that the Respondent was not aware of the Mark and the Complainant’s services. Moreover, the slightest check or investigation would have disclosed the Mark’s registration and use. Myer Stores Limited v. David John Singh , WIPO Case No. D2001-0763 . The Respondent’s registration of a series of disputed domain names with suffixes likely to draw attention or to be perceived as alarming such as “alert” and “message” creates an inference of bad faith registration and use. Comerica Bank v. Will Rote , WIPO Case No. D2016-0419 (transferring <my-comerica-alert.com>). Moreover, the disputed domain names do not resolve to any websites offering bona fide goods or services. The passive holding of the disputed domain names under these circumstances constitutes bad faith use. Telstra Corporation, Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows , WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 . The Complainant has met its burden of proof under 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 names <comericaalerts.com>, <mycomericaalert.com>, <mycomericaalerts.com>, <mycomericamessage.com>, and <mycomericamsg.com> be transferred to the Complainant. William F Hamilton Sole Panelist Date: April 26, 2016
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around comericaalerts.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.