Ewellsfargofinancial.com + 14 more domains

The timeline behind ewellsfargofinancial.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Wells Fargo and Company v. Unasi Management Inc. Claim Number: FA0505000471513 PARTIES Complainant is Wells Fargo and Company (“Complainant”), represented by Ester Martin Maillaro, of Faegre and Benson, LLP, 1900 Fifteenth Street, Boulder, CO 80302-5414. Respondent is Unasi Management Inc. (“Respondent”), Galerias Alvear, Via Argentina 2, Oficina #3, Zona 5, Panama 5235. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <ewellsfargofinancial.com>, <wellsdfargofinancial.com>, <wellsfargofiinancial.com>, <wellsfargofinamcial.com>, <wellsfargofinancail.com>, <wellsfargofinancyal.com>, <wellsfargofinanmcial.com>, <wellsfargofinanncial.com>, <wellsfargofinnacial.com>, <wellsfargofinncial.com>, <wellsfargoginancial.com>, <wellsfargoifinancial.com>, <wellsfargoofinancial.com>, <wellsfargoservice.com> and <wwlwellsfargo.com> registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 2, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 4, 2005. On May 6, 2005, Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain names <ewellsfargofinancial.com>, <wellsdfargofinancial.com>, <wellsfargofiinancial.com>,<wellsfargofinamcial.com>, <wellsfargofinancail.com>, <wellsfargofinancyal.com>, <wellsfargofinanmcial.com>, <wellsfargofinanncial.com>, <wellsfargofinnacial.com>, <wellsfargofinncial.com>, <wellsfargoginancial.com>, <wellsfargoifinancial.com>, <wellsfargoofinancial.com>, <wellsfargoservice.com> and <wwlwellsfargo.com> are registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On May 6, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of May 26, 2005 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@ewellsfargofinancial.com, postmaster@wellsdfargofinancial.com, postmaster@wellsfargofiinancial.com, postmaster@wellsfargofinamcial.com, postmaster@wellsfargofinancail.com, postmaster@wellsfargofinancyal.com, postmaster@wellsfargofinanmcial.com, postmaster@wellsfargofinanncial.com, postmaster@wellsfargofinnacial.com, postmaster@wellsfargofinncial.com, postmaster@wellsfargoginancial.com, postmaster@wellsfargoifinancial.com, postmaster@wellsfargoofinancial.com, postmaster@wellsfargoservice.com and postmaster@wwlwellsfargo.com by e-mail. Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On June 3, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <ewellsfargofinancial.com>, <wellsdfargofinancial.com>, <wellsfargofiinancial.com>, <wellsfargofinamcial.com>, <wellsfargofinancail.com>, <wellsfargofinancyal.com>, <wellsfargofinanmcial.com>, <wellsfargofinanncial.com>, <wellsfargofinnacial.com>, <wellsfargofinncial.com>, <wellsfargoginancial.com>, <wellsfargoifinancial.com>, <wellsfargoofinancial.com>, <wellsfargoservice.com> and <wwlwellsfargo.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ewellsfargofinancial.com>, <wellsdfargofinancial.com>, <wellsfargofiinancial.com>, <wellsfargofinamcial.com>, <wellsfargofinancail.com>, <wellsfargofinancyal.com>, <wellsfargofinanmcial.com>, <wellsfargofinanncial.com>, <wellsfargofinnacial.com>, <wellsfargofinncial.com>, <wellsfargoginancial.com>, <wellsfargoifinancial.com>, <wellsfargoofinancial.com>, <wellsfargoservice.com> and <wwlwellsfargo.com> domain names. 3. Respondent registered and used the <ewellsfargofinancial.com>, <wellsdfargofinancial.com>, <wellsfargofiinancial.com>, <wellsfargofinamcial.com>, <wellsfargofinancail.com>, <wellsfargofinancyal.com>, <wellsfargofinanmcial.com>, <wellsfargofinanncial.com>, <wellsfargofinnacial.com>, <wellsfargofinncial.com>, <wellsfargoginancial.com>, <wellsfargoifinancial.com>, <wellsfargoofinancial.com>, <wellsfargoservice.com> and <wwlwellsfargo.com> domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Wells Fargo & Company, provides quality banking, financial and related goods and services. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the WELLS FARGO mark (Reg. No. 779,187 issued October 27, 1964 for banking and trust services, Reg. No. 1,167,626 issued September 1, 1981 for real estate brokerage and Reg. No. 1,273,144 issued April 3, 1984 for armored trucks and structural parts). Complainant also holds trademark registrations for the WELLS FARGO mark from Algeria to Zimbabwe. Complainant has used the WELLS FARGO mark in commerce since 1852. Complainant is a diversified financial services company with $422 billion in assets and 146,000 employees. Respondent registered the <ewellsfargofinancial.com>, <wellsdfargofinancial.com>, <wellsfargofiinancial.com>, <wellsfargofinamcial.com>, <wellsfargofinancail.com>, <wellsfargofinancyal.com>, <wellsfargofinanmcial.com>, <wellsfargofinanncial.com>, <wellsfargofinnacial.com>, <wellsfargofinncial.com>, <wellsfargoginancial.com>, <wellsfargoifinancial.com>, <wellsfargoofinancial.com>, <wellsfargoservice.com> and <wwlwellsfargo.com> domain names on April 16, 2005. Respondent’s domain names do not resolve to an active website, and have not been used by Respondent to market any bona fide goods or services. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has established rights in the WELLS FARGO mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, continuous use of the mark in commerce since 1852. See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.”); see also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive. Respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption.); see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which Respondent operates. It is sufficient that Complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction.). Respondent’s <ewellsfargofinancial.com>, <wellsdfargofinancial.com>, <wellsfargofiinancial.com>, <wellsfargofinamcial.com>, <wellsfargofinancail.com>, <wellsfargofinancyal.com>, <wellsfargofinanmcial.com>, <wellsfargofinanncial.com>, <wellsfargofinnacial.com>, <wellsfargofinncial.com>, <wellsfargoginancial.com>, <wellsfargoifinancial.com>, <wellsfargoofinancial.com>, <wellsfargoservice.com> and <wwlwellsfargo.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark. Respondent’s domain names fully incorporate Complainant’s mark, and only deviate with the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” misspelled generic terms, and additional letters. These additions to Complainant’s mark do not distinguish the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Oki Data Ams., Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001) (“the fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks”); see also Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Indus. Sales Corp., FA 95856 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that confusion would result when Internet users, intending to access Complainant’s website, think that an affiliation of some sort exists between Complainant and Respondent, when in fact, no such relationship would exist); see also Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where Respondent’s domain name combines Complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a Respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent failed to contest Complainant’s assertion that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Because Complainant’s evidence and arguments are unopposed, the Panel is permitted to accept all reasonable inferences made in the Complaint as true. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that Complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence). Additionally, Complainant has submitted a prima facie case to the Panel, thereby shifting the burden to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to fulfill its burden means that Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances that could demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that once Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to Respondent to provide credible evidence that substantiates its claim of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a Response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name). Respondent registered the disputed domain names on April 16, 2005 and has not made any use of the disputed domain names. This period of inactivity is sufficient to establish that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Vestel Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret AS v. Kahveci, D2000-1244 (WIPO Nov. 11, 2000) (finding that “merely registering the domain names is not sufficient to establish rights or legitimate interests for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy”); see also Chanel, Inc. v. Heyward, D2000-1802 (WIPO Feb. 23, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where “Respondent registered the domain name and did nothing with it”); see also Ziegenfelder Co. v. VMH Enter., Inc., D2000-0039 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding that failure to provide a product or service or develop the site demonstrates that Respondents have not established any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name). Furthermore, nothing in the record indicates that Respondent is either commonly known by the disputed domain names or authorized to register domain names featuring Complainant’s famous mark. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the <ewellsfargofinancial.com>, <wellsdfargofinancial.com>, <wellsfargofiinancial.com>, <wellsfargofinamcial.com>, <wellsfargofinancail.com>, <wellsfargofinancyal.com>, <wellsfargofinanmcial.com>, <wellsfargofinanncial.com>, <wellsfargofinnacial.com>, <wellsfargofinncial.com>, <wellsfargoginancial.com>, <wellsfargoifinancial.com>, <wellsfargoofinancial.com>, <wellsfargoservice.com> and <wwlwellsfargo.com> domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in the respondent’s WHOIS information implies that the respondent is ‘commonly known by the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent is not using the disputed domain names, which are confusingly similar to Complainant's WELLS FARGO mark, for any purpose. Although the domain names were registered less than three months ago, the Panel finds that it is inconceivable that Respondent could make any use of the disputed domain names without creating a false impression of association with Complainant. Such opportunistic holding of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known mark equates to bad faith use and registration under Policy 4(a)(iii). See Phat Fashions v. Kruger, FA 96193 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy 4(a)(iii) even though the respondent had not used the domain name because “it makes no sense whatever to wait until it actually 'uses' the name, when inevitably, when there is such use, it will create the confusion described in the Policy”); see also Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v. Colour Digital, D2000-1260 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent made no use of the domain name in question, and there were no other indications that the respondent could have registered and used the domain name in question for any non-infringing purpose); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that the ICQ mark was so obviously connected with the complainant and its products that the use of the domain names by the respondent, who had no connection with the complainant, suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use where it was inconceivable that Respondent could make any active use of the disputed domain names without creating a false impression of association with Complainant'). Furthermore, Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the WELLS FARGO mark due to Complainant’s aggressive promotion of the mark in commerce and worldwide acclaim. Registration of domain names confusingly similar to a mark, despite actual or constructive knowledge of another’s rights in the mark, is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration); see also Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (holding that “there is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or constructively”); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18. 2000) (finding that Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s EXXON mark given the worldwide prominence of the mark and thus Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied. DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ewellsfargofinancial.com>, <wellsdfargofinancial.com>, <wellsfargofiinancial.com>, <wellsfargofinamcial.com>, <wellsfargofinancail.com>, <wellsfargofinancyal.com>, <wellsfargofinanmcial.com>, <wellsfargofinanncial.com>, <wellsfargofinnacial.com>, <wellsfargofinncial.com>, <wellsfargoginancial.com>, <wellsfargoifinancial.com>, <wellsfargoofinancial.com>, <wellsfargoservice.com> and <wwlwellsfargo.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist Dated: June 17, 2005 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.