Bbtonline.com

The timeline behind bbtonline.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 BB&T Corporation v. Domain Administrator Claim Number: FA0610000812295 PARTIES Complainant is BB&T Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Lisa McDougald, of BB&T Corporation, 3127 Smoketree Ct., Raleigh, NC 27604. Respondent is Domain Administrator (“Respondent”), PO Box 533 WB, West Bay KY, 00000. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <bbtonline.com>, registered with Parava Networks Inc d/b/a Registrateya.com Naame.com. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 4, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 5, 2006. On October 9, 2006, Parava Networks Inc d/b/a Registrateya.com Naame.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <bbtonline.com> domain name is registered with Parava Networks Inc d/b/a Registrateya.com Naame.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Parava Networks Inc d/b/a Registrateya.com Naame.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Parava Networks Inc d/b/a Registrateya.com Naame.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 October 11, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 31, 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@bbtonline.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On November 3, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (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 <bbtonline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BB&T ONLINE mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <bbtonline.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <bbtonline.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, BB&T Corporation, is a financial institution with over 1,400 branch offices in the United States. In connection with the promotion and provision of these services, Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), including the BB&T ONLINE mark (Reg. No. 2,424,464 issued January 30, 2001). Respondent registered the <bbtonline.com> domain name on June 1, 2006. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that redirects Internet users to a number of competing and non-competing websites, relating to home loans, stock and herbal fertility remedies. 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 in the BB&T ONLINE mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO. 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 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 [or] have acquired secondary meaning.”). Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BB&T ONLINE mark. The disputed domain name omits the ampersand, but otherwise contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety. The mere omission of an ampersand does not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s BB&T ONLINE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See McKinsey Holdings, Inc. v. Indidom, D2000-1616 (WIPO Jan. 31, 2001) (finding that the removal of the ampersand from “McKinsey & Company” does not affect the user’s understanding of the domain name, and therefore the domain name <mckinseycompany.com> is identical and/or confusingly similar to the mark “McKinsey & Company”); see also Strasburger & Price, FA 94290 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (finding that the <strasburgerprice.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s STRASBURGER & PRICE mark). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant holds the initial burden of proof to make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If Complainant successfully establishes such a showing, the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”). Respondent’s failure to submit a Response in this proceeding creates a presumption that it lacks rights and legitimate in the disputed domain name. See Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that the respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names). Nevertheless, the Panel chooses to examine the evidence to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). According to the WHOIS registry, Respondent registered the disputed domain name under the name “Domain Administrator.” Moreover, the record is devoid of any evidence indicating that Respondent is known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’ Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”); see also Brown v. Sarrault, FA 99584 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 16, 2001) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <mobilitytrans.com> domain name because it was doing business as “Mobility Connections”). Additionally, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that redirects Internet users to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant’s financial services. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark to redirect Internet users to third-party websites, presumably for commercial gain, does not amount a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or legitimate fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Seiko Kabushiki Kaisha v. CS into Tech, FA 198795 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“Diverting customers, who are looking for products relating to the famous SEIKO mark, to a website unrelated to the mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor does it represent a noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev, FA 156716 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to the complainant’s mark, websites where the respondent presumably receives a referral fee for each misdirected Internet user, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the Policy). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Due to the confusingly similar nature of the disputed domain name to Complainant’s BB&T ONLINE mark and the linkage to websites related to the financial industry, there exists a likelihood that consumers will become confused as to Complainant’s sponsorship of or affiliation with the disputed domain name. Additionally, it can be inferred from the nature of the website that Respondent is accumulating commercial gain through referral fees. Accordingly, the Panel agrees with Complainant’s contention and finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration by using domain names that were identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to redirect users to a website that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also Philip Morris Inc. v. r9.net, D2003-0004 (WIPO Feb. 28, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s registration of an infringing domain name to redirect Internet users to banner advertisements constituted bad faith use of the domain name). Moreover, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark for the purposes of redirecting Internet users to third-party websites that are in competition with Complainant constitutes disruption and evidences bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites); see Puckett, Individually v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent has diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). 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 <bbtonline.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist Dated: November 16, 2006 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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