Natwestbankinc.com

The timeline behind natwestbankinc.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. Carl Ltd Claim Number: FA0603000670271 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 Carl Ltd (“Respondent”), 654 Luther ST, Chesapeake, VA 23322. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <natwestbankinc.com>, registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.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. Mr. P-E Petter Rindforth as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 31, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 5, 2006. On March 31, 2006, Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <natwestbankinc.com> domain name is registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.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 April 6, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of April 26, 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@natwestbankinc.com by e-mail. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 10, 2006. On April 18, 2006, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Mr. P-E Petter Rindforth as Panelist. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant, National Westminster Bank plc (“NatWest Bank”), owned by The Royal Bank of Scotland Group, was founded in 1968 and is a leading financial institution based in the United Kingdom. Complainant has more than 7.5 million personal customers and 850,000 small business accounts (corporate information for Complainant provided as Exhibit A of the Complaint). Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for NATWEST in the United Kingdom, United States, and a number of other countries throughout the world (copies of official databases for UK and USA, as well as a chart for the rest of the other countries provided as Exhibit B 1-4 of the Complaint). Complainant, and its owners, also hold the domain names <natwest.com>, <natwestbank.org>, <natwestbank.biz>, <natwestbank.org.uk>, <natwestbank.co.uk>, <natwestbanking.com>, <natwestbanking.org>, <natwestbanking.net>, <natwestbanking.co.uk>, <natwestbankline.com> and <natwestbankline.org> (copies of the Whois information for these domain names provided a Exhibit B5 of the Complaint). The disputed domain name fully incorporates Complainant’s registered wordmark with the addition of a term describing Complainant’s business and a common form-of-business designation. The domain name is therefore confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Complainant argues that these additions do not distinguish the domain name and refers to Archer–Daniels-Midland Co. v. Bodine, D2002-0482 (WIPO July 17, 2002) (<hickorypointbank.com>, ruling that: “there is no doubt that the Domain Name – which incorporates the principal words of Complainant’s mark – will confuse customers and prospective customers of Complainant’s banking services.”), and others. Complainant further asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name that is the subject of this Complaint. Complainant states that, as of March 24, 2006, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that is a fraudulent imitation of Complainant’s legitimate website at <natwest.com> (printouts from Respondent’s web site provided as Exibit D of the Complaint). Moreover, a page from the Respondent’s website titled “NatWest Online Banking Section” requires the user to provide confidential information, namely his/her NatWest Bank Account Number and Pin (Exhibit E of the Complaint). Finally, Complainant argues that the mark NATWEST is well known around the world and that Respondent therefore is deemed to have actual or constructive knowledge of the mark at the time he registered the domain name. Respondent’s intentional copying of Complainant’s website is evidence that Respondent knew about Complainant’s business, its products and its website. Complainant concludes that Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith and refers to Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Iza, FA 245960 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2004) (“Respondent’s . . . domain name . . . redirects Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s billing website, and is used to fraudulently acquire personal information from Complainant’s clients. Respondent’s use of the domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to [the Policy].”), and others. B. Respondent Respondent does not contest any of Complainant’s allegations regarding the domain name. Respondent asserts that “unknown persons” stole Respondent’s identity and registered the disputed domain name without Respondent’s permission. Respondent stated that it has “no interest and never ha[s] had an interest in the domain name…in the past, nor in the future.” FINDINGS According to Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “a Panel shall 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 this case, Respondent does not contest Complainant’s request that the disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. In fact, Respondent claims that he has nothing to do with the domain name and that someone unknown has simply used the identity of Respondent without his permission. Therefore, under these special circumstances, this Panel decides to forego the traditional UDRP analysis, not to make any further findings or discussion, and order the immediate transfer of the disputed domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”). DECISION Giving the special circumstances in this case, and the fact that Respondent does not contest the transfer of the domain name, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <natwestbankinc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Mr P-E Petter Rindforth, Panelist Dated: May 2, 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.