Westmore · UDRP DecisionRbcroyalbank.info
The Panel ordered transfer of <rbcroyalbank.info>. It found the domain confusingly similar because it wholly incorporated the Complainant’s RBC and ROYAL BANK trademarks; found no evidence of Respondent rights or legitimate interests; and found bad-faith registration and use based on the Respondent’s awareness of the longstanding marks, the domain’s composition, the prior promotional “coming soon” page, the resulting likelihood of confusion for commercial gain, and the absence of any explanation from the Respondent.
The timeline behind rbcroyalbank.info
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
The decision illustrates a straightforward UDRP application where a domain combines two longstanding marks of the same complainant and is paired with website content suggesting future promotions or sales. It also confirms, on the facts presented, that a domain’s inactivity at the time of decision does not erase evidence of earlier use or prevent a bad-faith finding.
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 Royal Bank of Canada – Banque Royale du Canada v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1249581030 / baran karadagli Case No. D2021-0785 1. The Parties The Complainant is Royal Bank of Canada – Banque Royale du Canada, Canada, represented by Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, Canada. The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1249581030, Canada / baran karadagli, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <rbcroyalbank.info> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 16, 2021. On March 17, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On March 17, 2021, 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 the Complainant on March 19, 2021 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 March 19, 2021. 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 March 25, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 14, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 15, 2021. The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on April 21, 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 Canadian bank that operates in over 36 countries worldwide. Incorporated in 1869, the Complainant has over 86,000 employees and serves 17 million clients. In addition, the Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations for trademarks including the term “Royal Bank” or “RBC” (collectively as the “Trademarks”) including, among others: - RBC, Canadian Trademark Registration No. TMA369496, registered on June 15, 1990; - RBC, Canadian Trademark Registration No. TMA424800, registered on March 4, 1994; - ROYAL BANK, Canadian Trademark Registration No. TMA356947, registered on June 9, 1989; and - RBC, European Union Trademark Registration No. 001862952, registered on March 28, 2002. The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name <rbcroyalbank.info> on February 28, 2021. The Disputed Domain Name is currently inactive. However, the Complainant submitted evidence that the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a website indicated as being under construction and featuring the posting “royalbank – coming soon” together with an invitation to end users to receive notifications for “promotions, new products and sales”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant´s contentions can be summarized as follows: Identical or confusingly similar The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the whole of the Trademarks. Thus, the Respondent cannot avoid confusion as it has misappropriated the entirety of the Trademarks. Accordingly, the Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar with the Trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. Rights or legitimate interest The Complainant alleges that there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has ever used, or demonstrated preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name, or a name corresponding to same, in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant further states that there has never been any relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent. The Respondent is not licensed, or otherwise authorized, be it directly or indirectly, to register or use, the Trademarks in any way whatsoever, including in, or as part of, a domain name. In addition, the use of the Disputed Domain Name established a lack of legitimate interest given that the posting has no connective tissue whatsoever to the Disputed Domain Name or banking services. Indeed, the Respondent’s website confirms that the Respondent was simply seeking to piggyback, for financial gain, on the goodwill associated with the Trademarks. Consequently, the Complainant contends that the Respondent does not have a legitimate interest or rights in the Disputed Domain Name. Registration and use in bad faith The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is comprised exclusively of the Trademarks. In this regard, the Disputed Domain Name would likely confuse potential consumers into believing that the Respondent is somehow affiliated with, or endorsed by, the Complainant. Furthermore, the Disputed Domain Name, if ever put to use, would result in Internet traffic being diverted from the Complainant to the Respondent, thereby putting the Respondent in a position to reap a financial benefit. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Respondent’s initial website invited end users to receive notifications regarding “ promotions, new products and sales ”, which demonstrates an intent to profit off the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar with the Trademarks in which the Complainant has rights and continues to have such rights. Moreover, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name and the Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which the Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Disputed Domain Name: “(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in the which the Complainant has rights; (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 submitted, this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name <rbcroyalbank.info> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademarks. The Disputed Domain Name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s Trademarks as its only distinctive element. Furthermore, the Disputed Domain Name contains the Complainants’ Trademarks in their entirety, and the addition of the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.info” does not change this finding, since the TLD is generally disregarded in such an assessment of confusingly similarity. Therefore, this Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name: “(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, 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; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are 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 or service at issue.” There is no evidence of the existence of any of those rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Name or to use the Trademarks. The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any rights with respect to the Disputed Domain Name or that the Disputed Domain Name is used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. The Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, but it did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. As such, this Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the second requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The fact that the Disputed Domain Name reproduces the Complainant’s Trademarks establishes that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s trademarks when registering the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has been using its Trademarks long before the Disputed Domain Name was registered. In addition, the Disputed Domain Name is nearly identical to the Complainant’s Trademarks and thereby deliberately attempts to disrupt the Complainant’s business. The Disputed Domain Name is currently inactive. As it has been the case in several previous UDRP cases, the fact that the Disputed Domain Name is currently inactive does not prevent a finding of bad faith use and does not change the Panel’s views in this respect. Moreover, the Respondent did not submit any explanation or possible justification for its use of the Disputed Domain Name. The circumstances in the case before this Panel indicate that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s Trademarks when registering the Disputed Domain Name and it has intentionally created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Trademarks in order to attract Internet users for its own commercial gain. This conduct falls squarely under the circumstance where bad faith registration and use can be found as described by paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Therefore, taking all the circumstances into account and for all the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name 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 Disputed Domain Name <rbcroyalbank.info> be transferred to the Complainant. Pablo A. Palazzi Sole Panelist Date: May 5, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around rbcroyalbank.info
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.