Wwwwellsfargocom.org + 16 more domains

The timeline behind wwwwellsfargocom.org

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 Wells Fargo & Company v. Sergy Selivanov Claim Number: FA0901001241104 PARTIES Complainant is Wells Fargo & Company (“Complainant”), represented by Deborah Shinbein, of Faegre & Benson, LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Sergy Selivanov (“Respondent”), Poland. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <wwwwellsfargocom.org>, <wellafargo.net>, <wellsgargo.net>, <wellsfrago.org>, <wellesfargo.net>, <wellsfsrgo.net>, <wellsfarg.net>, <wellsfaro.biz>, <weellsfargo.net>, <wellsargo.net>, <wellsforgo.net>, <wellsafargo.net>, <wellsfrgo.net>, <wellsfargp.net>, <wwellsfargo.net>, <wllsfargo.net>, and <ellsfargo.net>, registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.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. James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 5, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 7, 2009. On January 7, 2009, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <wwwwellsfargocom.org>, <wellafargo.net>, <wellsgargo.net>, <wellsfrago.org>, <wellesfargo.net>, <wellsfsrgo.net>, <wellsfarg.net>, <wellsfaro.biz>, <weellsfargo.net>, <wellsargo.net>, <wellsforgo.net>, <wellsafargo.net>, <wellsfrgo.net>, <wellsfargp.net>, <wwellsfargo.net>, <wllsfargo.net>, and <ellsfargo.net> domain names are registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.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 January 9, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 29, 2009 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@wwwwellsfargocom.org, postmaster@wellafargo.net, postmaster@wellsgargo.net, postmaster@wellsfrago.org, postmaster@wellesfargo.net, postmaster@wellsfsrgo.net, postmaster@wellsfarg.net, postmaster@wellsfaro.biz, postmaster@weellsfargo.net, postmaster@wellsargo.net, postmaster@wellsforgo.net, postmaster@wellsafargo.net, postmaster@wellsfrgo.net, postmaster@wellsfargp.net, postmaster@wwellsfargo.net, postmaster@wllsfargo.net, and postmaster@ellsfargo.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 6, 2009, 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 <wwwwellsfargocom.org>, <wellafargo.net>, <wellsgargo.net>, <wellsfrago.org>, <wellesfargo.net>, <wellsfsrgo.net>, <wellsfarg.net>, <wellsfaro.biz>, <weellsfargo.net>, <wellsargo.net>, <wellsforgo.net>, <wellsafargo.net>, <wellsfrgo.net>, <wellsfargp.net>, <wwellsfargo.net>, <wllsfargo.net>, and <ellsfargo.net> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwwellsfargocom.org>, <wellafargo.net>, <wellsgargo.net>, <wellsfrago.org>, <wellesfargo.net>, <wellsfsrgo.net>, <wellsfarg.net>, <wellsfaro.biz>, <weellsfargo.net>, <wellsargo.net>, <wellsforgo.net>, <wellsafargo.net>, <wellsfrgo.net>, <wellsfargp.net>, <wwellsfargo.net>, <wllsfargo.net>, and <ellsfargo.net> domain names. 3. Respondent registered and used the <wwwwellsfargocom.org>, <wellafargo.net>, <wellsgargo.net>, <wellsfrago.org>, <wellesfargo.net>, <wellsfsrgo.net>, <wellsfarg.net>, <wellsfaro.biz>, <weellsfargo.net>, <wellsargo.net>, <wellsforgo.net>, <wellsafargo.net>, <wellsfrgo.net>, <wellsfargp.net>, <wwellsfargo.net>, <wllsfargo.net>, and <ellsfargo.net> domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Wells Fargo & Company, is a diversified financial services company providing banking, insurance, investments mortgages, and consumer finance for more than 27 million customers. Complainant holds numerous registrations of its WELLS FARGO with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (i.e., Reg. No. 779,187 issued October 27, 1964). Respondent registered the <wwwwellsfargocom.org>, <wellafargo.net>, <wellsgargo.net>, <wellsfrago.org>, <wellesfargo.net>, <wellsfsrgo.net>, <wellsfarg.net>, <wellsfaro.biz>, <weellsfargo.net>, <wellsargo.net>, <wellsforgo.net>, <wellsafargo.net>, <wellsfrgo.net>, <wellsfargp.net>, <wwellsfargo.net>, <wllsfargo.net>, and <ellsfargo.net> domain names on June 27, 2008. All of the disputed domain names resolve to very similar websites, which contain several hyperlinks to various third-party websites, some of which are in direct competition with 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 The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently established rights in the WELLS FARGO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because it holds a registration of the mark with the USPTO. See 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.”); see Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) ("Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive."). Almost every one of the disputed domain names contains a misspelling of Complainant’s mark by merely adding or deleting letters. The one exception is the <wwwwellsfargocom.org> domain name that contains Complainant’s entire mark, adds “www” to the front of Complainant’s mark, and “com” to the end of Complainant’s mark. Furthermore, all of the disputed domain names add a top-level domain to the respective misspelling. None of the aforementioned alterations to Complainant’s mark distinguish any of the disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark for the purposes of confusing similarity. Therefore, the Panel finds that all of the <wwwwellsfargocom.org>, <wellafargo.net>, <wellsgargo.net>, <wellsfrago.org>, <wellesfargo.net>, <wellsfsrgo.net>, <wellsfarg.net>, <wellsfaro.biz>, <weellsfargo.net>, <wellsargo.net>, <wellsforgo.net>, <wellsafargo.net>, <wellsfrgo.net>, <wellsfargp.net>, <wwellsfargo.net>, <wllsfargo.net>, and <ellsfargo.net> domain names are confusingly similar with Complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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 Register.com Inc. v. House, FA 167970 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 22, 2003) (finding the prefix “www” followed by the trademark with no period separating them did not distinguish the mark and was confusingly similar); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests In the beginning, Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The burden then shifts to Respondent and Respondent must establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently made its prima facie showing under 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 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).”). Furthermore, because Respondent has failed to respond to Complainant’s allegations, the Panel may presume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests. However, the Panel will still analyze the record under Policy ¶ 4(c). 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 Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“[Rule 14(b)] expressly provide[s] that the Panel ‘shall draw such inferences’ from the Respondent’s failure to comply with the rules ‘as it considers appropriate.”). All of the disputed domain names resolve to very similar websites, which contain several hyperlinks to various third-party websites, some of which are in direct competition with Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for these hyperlinks. The Panel finds that this is a diversion of Internet users for Respondent’s commercial benefit, and is therefore not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. balata inc, FA 888649 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2007) (finding that “using the confusingly similar <viaggidea.com> domain name to operate a website that features links to various commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees….is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). In addition, Respondent is listed in the WHOIS information as “Sergy Selivanov,” which does not indicate that it is commonly known by any of the disputed domain names. Respondent has not offered any evidence to indicate otherwise. The Panel thus finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also 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.”). Finally, Respondent’s disputed domain names take advantage of common misspellings of Complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark. The Panel finds that these actions constitute typosquatting, and is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Black & Decker Corp. v. Khan, FA 137223 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 3, 2003) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent used the typosquatted <wwwdewalt.com> domain name to divert Internet users to a search engine webpage, and failed to respond to the complaint); see also Diners Club Int’l Ltd. v. Domain Admin******It's all in the name******, FA 156839 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s <wwwdinersclub.com> domain name, a typosquatted version of the complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark, was evidence in and of itself that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name vis á vis the complainant). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent’s use of Complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark in the disputed domain names to divert Internet users to Complainant’s competitors suggests that Respondent registered the disputed domain names intending to disrupt Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that this is evidence of bad faith registration and use under 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 Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert Internet users to a competitor's website. It is a reasonable inference that Respondent's purpose of registration and use was to either disrupt or create confusion for Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”). The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to Complainant’s competitors. Because Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark, Internet users accessing Respondent’s disputed domain names may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation or sponsorship with the resolving websites. Respondent is attempting to profit from this confusion via the click-through-fees. Thus, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see also AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes). Furthermore, the Panel finds that it may consider the totality of the circumstances when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) analysis, and that it is not limited to the enumerated factors in Policy ¶ 4(b). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“[T]he examples [of bad faith] in Paragraph 4(b) are intended to be illustrative, rather than exclusive.”). The Panel finds that Respondent’s engagement in typosquatting is evidence that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball League, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting … is the intentional misspelling of words with [the] intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith.”); see also Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Skander, FA 135598 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (stating that “[b]y registering the ‘typosquatted’ domain name in [Complainant’s] affiliate program, Respondent profits on the goodwill of [Complainant’s] protected marks and primary Internet domain names,” which is evidence of bad faith registration and use). 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 <wwwwellsfargocom.org>, <wellafargo.net>, <wellsgargo.net>, <wellsfrago.org>, <wellesfargo.net>, <wellsfsrgo.net>, <wellsfarg.net>, <wellsfaro.biz>, <weellsfargo.net>, <wellsargo.net>, <wellsforgo.net>, <wellsafargo.net>, <wellsfrgo.net>, <wellsfargp.net>, <wwellsfargo.net>, <wllsfargo.net>, and <ellsfargo.net> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist Dated: February 19, 2009 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.