Nationalwestministerbkplc.com

The timeline behind nationalwestministerbkplc.com

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

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

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION National Westminster Bank plc v. Nancy Cameron Claim Number: FA0602000648166 PARTIES Complainant is National Westminster Bank plc (“Complainant”), represented by James A. Thomas, of Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein L.L.P., Post Office Box 389, Raleigh, NC 27602. Respondent is Nancy Cameron (“Respondent”), P O Box 99800, EmeryVille, CA 94662. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <nationalwestministerbkplc.com>, registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide. 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. Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 17, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 21, 2006. On February 19, 2006, Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <nationalwestministerbkplc.com> domain name is registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide has verified that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide 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 February 22, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 14, 2006 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@nationalwestministerbkplc.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 20, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <nationalwestministerbkplc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <nationalwestministerbkplc.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <nationalwestministerbkplc.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, National Westminster Bank plc, has continuously and extensively used the NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK mark in connection with its personal and business banking services since 1968. Complainant has more than 7.5 million personal customers and over 850,000 business customers around the world. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group, the fifth-largest financial services group in the world, is the owner of Complainant. Complainant has registered the NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,587,103 issued March 13, 1990) and the United Kingdom Patent Office (“UKPO”) (Reg. No. 1,278,213 issued March 15, 1991; Reg. No. 1,278,214 issued March 15, 1991; Reg. No. 1,283,909 issued August 28, 1992; Reg. No. 1,444,866 issued January 7, 1994). Complainant has also registered the <nationalwestminsterbank.com> (registered April 19, 2002), <nationalwestminster.com> (registered May 29, 2003), and <natwest.com> (registered February 11, 1997) domain names. Respondent registered the <nationalwestministerbkplc.com> domain name on October 29, 2005. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a website purporting to offer online banking services and displaying the terms “National Westminister Bank” and “24 Hours Online banking.” The “Who we are” link resolves to a screen describing Respondent as a FDIC-insured bank doing business in the United Kingdom. The “Online banking” link resolves to a page prompting Internet users to enter a username and password. 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. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also 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.”). 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 to the NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK mark by registering the mark with the USPTO and UKPO. See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”); see also Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”). Respondent’s <nationalwestministerbkplc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), because it incorporates Complainant’s entire mark, adds a single letter “i,” abbreviates the word “bank,” and adds Complainant’s corporate designation, “plc.” Panels have held that the misspelling, abbreviation, and addition of words in a mark do not sufficiently distinguish a respondent’s domain name from a complainant’s mark. See 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 the complainant’s marks); see also Minn. State Lottery v. Mendes, FA 96701 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 2, 2001) (finding that the <mnlottery.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s MINNESOTA STATE LOTTERY registered mark); see also Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <nationalwestministerbkplc.com> domain name. Complainant must first make a prima facie case in support of its allegations, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”). Respondent’s failure to answer the Complaint raises a presumption that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <nationalwestministerbkplc.com> domain name. See CMGI, Inc. v. Reyes, D2000-0572 (WIPO Aug. 8, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s failure to produce requested documentation supports a finding for the complainant); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent fails to respond). However, the Panel will now examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c). Respondent has registered the domain name under the name “Nancy Cameron,” and there is no other evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the <nationalwestministerbkplc.com> domain name. Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the <nationalwestministerbkplc.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Am. Online, Inc. v. World Photo Video & Imaging Corp., FA 109031 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 13, 2002) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by <aolcamera.com> or <aolcameras.com> because the respondent was doing business as “Sunset Camera” and “World Photo Video & Imaging Corp.”); see also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail"). Furthermore, Respondent’s <nationalwestministerbkplc.com> domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK mark, resolves to a website offering online banking services similar to those Complainant offers at its own websites. Respondent’s website prominently displays Complainant’s NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK mark and contains a link that resolves to a login screen where Internet users are prompted to enter a username and password. Therefore, Respondent is engaged in a phishing scheme and attempting to pass itself off as Complainant in order to fraudulently acquire personal information from Complainant’s customers. In HOPE worldwide, Ltd. v. Jin, FA 320379 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2004), the respondent registered the <hope-worldwide.org> domain name and used it to operate a website virtually identical to the website of the complainant, a charity helping disadvantaged children and the elderly under the HOPE WORLDWIDE mark. The panel defined “phishing” as fooling Internet users into sharing personal financial data so that “identities can be stolen, fraudulent bills are run up, and spam e-mail is sent.” Id. The panel found that the respondent’s use of the <hope-worldwide.org> domain name to divert Internet users to a website that imitated the complainant’s website in order to fraudulently acquire personal information from the complainant’s customers did not fall within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). Id. Therefore, because Respondent is also operating a website that imitates Complainant’s website and it is attempting to fraudulently acquire personal information from Complainant’s customers, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for commercial gain does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Iza, FA 245960 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2004) (finding that using a domain name to redirect “Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s billing website, and is used to fraudulently acquire personal information from Complainant’s clients,” is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent is using the <nationalwestministerbkplc.com> domain name, which includes Complainant’s NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK mark, to redirect Internet users seeking Complainant’s banking services to Respondent’s own website that offers banking services similar to those Complainant offers under the NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK mark. Therefore, Respondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK mark, and profiting from the goodwill associated with the mark. Use of the disputed domain name for this purpose is indicative of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by displaying the complainant’s mark on its website and offering identical services as those offered by the complainant); see also Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Labs., D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent's use of the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where similar services are offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that the complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the site). Furthermore, by operating a website that imitates Complainant’s website, Respondent may be attempting to fraudulently gather personal information from Complainant’s customers who may believe that Respondent’s website is affiliated with Complainant. Therefore, Respondent is engaged in phishing, which constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Iza, FA 245960 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2004) (finding that using a domain name that “is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, redirects Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s billing website, and is used to fraudulently acquire personal information from Complainant’s clients” is evidence of bad faith registration and use); see also Capital One Fin. Corp. v. Howel, FA 289304 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding bad faith registration and use because the respondent used the domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that imitated the complainant’s website and to fraudulently acquire personal information from the complainant’s clients). 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 <nationalwestministerbkplc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist Dated: March 31, 2006 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.