Citizensbankonline.net

The timeline behind citizensbankonline.net

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 Citizens Financial Group, Inc. v. Domain Park Limited Claim Number: FA0705000975307 PARTIES Complainant is Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James A. Thomas, of Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein L.L.P., Post Office Box 389, Raleigh, NC 27602. Respondent is Domain Park Limited (“Respondent”), Vaea Street, Level 2, Lotemau Centre, Apia, Samoa 0815, WS. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <citizensbankonline.net>, registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc. 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. Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 30, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 1, 2007. On May 3, 2007, Moniker Online Services, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <citizensbankonline.net> domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Moniker Online Services, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker Online Services, Inc. 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 4, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of May 24, 2007 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@citizensbankonline.net by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On May 29, 2007, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <citizensbankonline.net> domain name is identical to Complainant’s CITIZENS BANK ONLINE mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <citizensbankonline.net> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <citizensbankonline.net> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Citizens Financial Group, Inc., is a provider of a wide range of financial services throughout the United States. These services include personal and commerical banking, loans, and investments. Complainant is the eighth largest commercial bank in the United States, and uses its CITIZENS BANK ONLINE mark in connection with its services. Complainant holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the CITIZENS BANK ONLINE mark (Reg. No. 2,407,272 issued November 21, 2000). Complainant also operates a website at the <citizensbankonline.com> domain name. Respondent registered the <citizensbankonline.net> domain name on February 9, 2007. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays hyperlinks to various third-party websites, some of which are in direct competition with Complainant, as well as displaying pop-up advertisements. 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 asserts rights in the CITIZENS BANK ONLINE mark by virtue of its trademark registration with the USPTO. The Panel finds that this registration with the USPTO confers rights on Complainant in the CITIZENS BANK ONLINE mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See AOL LLC v. AIM Profiles, FA 964479 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 20, 2007) (“Complainant has established rights in the AIM mark through its use and federal trademark registrations for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also UnitedHealth Group Inc. v. Hassan, FA 947081 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 17, 2007) (finding “no difficulty” in holding that the complainant had established rights in its asserted marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registrations with the USPTO). Respondent’s <citizensbankonline.net> domain name is identical to Complainant’s CITIZENS BANK ONLINE mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as it contains Complainant’s full and complete mark, with the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.net.” The addition of the gTLD to Complainant’s mark does not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark, as a gTLD is required of all domain names. Accordingly, the <citizensbankonline.net> domain name is identical to Complainant’s registered trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Little Six, Inc. v. Domain For Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2001) (finding that <mysticlake.net> is plainly identical to the complainant’s MYSTIC LAKE trademark and service mark); see also Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Shan Computers, D2000-0325 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding that the domain name <toshiba.net> is identical to the complainant’s trademark TOSHIBA). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has alleged that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Complainant must show a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <citizensbankonline.net> domain name. Once these allegations are made, the burden shifts to Respondent to set forth evidence that it does have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See 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”); see also Woolworths plc. v. Anderson, D2000-1113 (WIPO Oct. 10, 2000) (finding that, absent evidence of preparation to use the domain name for a legitimate purpose, the burden of proof lies with the respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests). Respondent’s failure to answer the Complaint implies that it lacks rights and legitimate interests with respect to the <citizensbankonline.net> domain name. See Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the panel to draw adverse inferences from the respondent’s failure to reply to the complaint). However, the Panel chooses to examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). Respondent’s WHOIS information does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the <citizensbankonline.net> domain name, and there is no other evidence in the record to suggest that Respondent is or has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is also no evidence to suggest that Respondent is or has ever been associated with or authorized by Complainant to use its trademark. In Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000), the panel declined to find rights or legitimate interest where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and had never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name. See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent is not commonly known by the <shoredurometer.com> or <shoredurometers.com> domain names where the WHOIS information indicates the registrant of the domain names as “Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a Electromatic Equip’t,” and no other evidence suggests that the respondent is commonly known by the domain names). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <citizensbankonline.net> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays pop-up advertisements, as well as hyperlinks to various third-party websites, some of which are in direct competition with Complainant. Such use of the <citizensbankonline.net> domain name is presumably for Respondent’s own commercial benefit through the accrual of click-through fees, and is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also De La Rue Holdings PLC v. Video Images Prods. L.L.C., FA 196054 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 27, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the <delaru.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the respondent was using the domain name to “subject unsuspecting users to a barrage of unsolicited [pop-up] advertisements,” presumably for commercial benefit). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel infers from Respondent’s use of the website that results from the <citizensbankonline.net> domain name that the disputed domain name is being used to commercially benefit from the goodwill attached to Complainant’s CITIZENS BANK ONLINE mark. Moreover, as the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark, the <citizensbankonline.net> domain name is capable of creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, and affiliation of Complainant to the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent took advantage of the confusing similarity between the <theotheraol.com> and <theotheraol.net> domain names and the complainant’s AOL mark, which indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Additionally, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to display hyperlinks to various third-party websites, some of which are in direct competition with the services offered by Complainant, constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names); see also EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (WIPO 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). 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 <citizensbankonline.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist Dated: June 7, 2007 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.