Grouptradergold.biz, Grouptradergold.com, Grouptradergold.net

The timeline behind grouptradergold.biz

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 Ulster Bank Limited and The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. Christopher Rainer Claim Number: FA0801001130403 PARTIES Complainant is Ulster Bank Limited and The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (collectively, “Complainant”), represented by James A. Thomas, of Troutman Sanders LLP, NC, USA. Respondent is Christopher Rainer (“Respondent”), AL, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <grouptradergold.biz>, registered with Melbourne It Ltd, as well as <grouptradergold.com> and <grouptradergold.net>, registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide. 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. James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 14, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 15, 2008. On January 23, 2008, Melbourne It Ltd confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <grouptradergold.biz> domain name is registered with Melbourne It Ltd, and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. On January 23, 2008, Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <grouptradergold.com> and <grouptradergold.net> domain names are registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide, and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Both Melbourne It Ltd and Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide has verified that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne It Ltd and Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide registration agreements, respectively, 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 January 28, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 19, 2008 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@grouptradergold.biz, postmaster@grouptradergold.com, and postmaster@grouptradergold.net by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On February 22, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., 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 <grouptradergold.biz>, <grouptradergold.com>, and <grouptradergold.net> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRADERGOLD mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <grouptradergold.biz>, <grouptradergold.com>, and <grouptradergold.net> domain names. 3. Respondent registered and used the <grouptradergold.biz>, <grouptradergold.com>, and <grouptradergold.net> domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, is a broadly based financial services group with operations in numerous countries on four continents with over 140,000 employees. Complainant, Ulster Bank Limited, has been providing financial services to customers in Ireland since 1836. Complainant, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, owns Ulster Bank Limited (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Complainant”). Complainant provides banking services at 213 branchs and an additional thirty-two business centers, corporate financial services, and wealth management activities. Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations for its TRADERGOLD mark, including one with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) (Reg. No. E2014058 issued January 22, 2002). Respondent registered the <grouptradergold.biz>, <grouptradergold.com>, and <grouptradergold.net> domain names on August 20, 2007. Respondent’s domain names resolve to the <groupforextrader.com> domain name, a competitor of Complainant. 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 TRADERGOLD mark through registration of the mark with the UKIPO and the OHIM. The Panel finds that Complainant’s evidence of trademark registrations is sufficient to establish rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Royal Bank of Scot. Group plc v. Soloviov, FA 787983 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 3, 2006) (“Complainant’s trademark registrations for the NATWEST mark with the United Kingdom Patent Office . . . establish Complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Royal Bank of Scot. Group plc v. Demand Domains, FA 714952 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 2, 2006) (holding that registration of the PRIVILEGE mark with the United Kingdom trademark authority sufficiently establishes the complainant’s rights in the mark under the policy). Complainant contends that Respondent’s <grouptradergold.biz>, <grouptradergold.com>, and <grouptradergold.net> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRADERGOLD mark. Each of Respondent’s domain names contain Complainant’s mark and adds the generic term “group” along with a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), such as “.biz,” “.com,” or “.net.” The Panel finds that neither the addition of a generic term nor the addition of a gTLD distinguishes a domain name from an other wise identical mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also L.L. Bean, Inc. v. ShopStarNetwork, FA 95404 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2000) (finding that combining the generic word “shop” with the complainant’s registered mark “llbean” does not circumvent the complainant’s rights in the mark nor avoid the confusing similarity aspect of the ICANN Policy); see also Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (“The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.”). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant asserts that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <grouptradergold.biz>, <grouptradergold.com>, and <grouptradergold.net> domain names. In instances where a complainant makes a prima facie case of a respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests, the burden shifts to that respondent to bring forth evidence of rights or legitimate interests to refute the allegations under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). In the matter at hand, the Panel finds that Complainant’s allegations have established a prima facie case under the Policy. 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 Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist). The WHOIS information for the <grouptradergold.biz>, <grouptradergold.com>, and <grouptradergold.net> domain names lists the registrant as “Christopher Rainer.” Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the <grouptradergold.biz>, <grouptradergold.com>, and <grouptradergold.net> domain names nor licensed to register names featuring Complainant’s TRADERGOLD mark. The Panel finds that, without evidence to the contrary, Respondent has failed to show that it is commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that Respondent, Onlyne Corporate Services11, is not commonly known by the name ‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”); see also Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C. v. Taylor, FA 173369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that without demonstrable evidence to support the assertion that a respondent is commonly known by a domain name, the assertion must be rejected). Moreover, Complainant contends that Respondent is using the <grouptradergold.biz>, <grouptradergold.com>, and <grouptradergold.net> domain names to redirect Internet users to the <groupforextrader.com> domain name which features financial services in competition with Complainant’s own services. The Panel finds that misappropriation of a trademark to operate a competing business is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v. Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a financial services website, which competed with the complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also Gardens Alive, Inc. v. D&S Linx, FA 203126 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20, 2003) (finding that the respondent used a domain name for commercial benefit by diverting Internet users to a website that sold goods and services similar to those offered by the complainant and thus, was not using the name in connection with 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 Complainant contends that Respondent is using the <grouptradergold.biz>, <grouptradergold.com>, and <grouptradergold.net> domain names to sell services in competition with its own financial services. The Panel finds that Respondent’s disruptionary use of its domain names is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered the domain name in question to disrupt the business of the complainant, a competitor of the respondent); see also EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding that the minor degree of variation from the complainant's marks suggests that the respondent, the complainant’s competitor, registered the names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the complainant's business). Additionally, Respondent’s use of the <grouptradergold.biz>, <grouptradergold.com>, and <grouptradergold.net> domain names for the purpose of redirecting Internet users to a competing commercial website is likely to cause confusion as to Complainant’s sponsorship or affiliation with the resulting website and business. The Panel finds that Respondent’s attempt to commercially gain from this confusion is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 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); see also MathForum.com, LLC v. Weiguang Huang, D2000-0743 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark and the domain name was used to host a commercial website that offered similar services offered by the complainant under its mark). 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 <grouptradergold.biz>, <grouptradergold.com>, and <grouptradergold.net> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist Dated: March 5, 2008 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.