Cambridgesavings.mobi

The timeline behind cambridgesavings.mobi

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 Cambridge Savings Bank v. nianxin lin c/o NIAN XIN LIN Claim Number: FA0909001284852 PARTIES Complainant is Cambridge Savings Bank (“Complainant”), represented by Neil T. Smith, of Goodwin Procter Llp, Massachusetts, U.S.A. Respondent is nianxin lin c/o NIAN XIN LIN (“Respondent”), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <cambridgesavings.mobi>, registered with Hichina Web Solutions Ltd. 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. Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 16, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 18, 2009. The Complaint was submitted in both Chinese and English. On September 17, 2009, Hichina Web Solutions Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <cambridgesavings.mobi> domain name is registered with Hichina Web Solutions Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hichina Web Solutions Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hichina Web Solutions Ltd. 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 September 29, 2009, a Chinese Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 19, 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@cambridgesavings.mobi by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On October 22, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese language Complaint and Commencement Notification and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English. 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 <cambridgesavings.mobi> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAMBRIDGE SAVINGS BANK mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <cambridgesavings.mobi> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <cambridgesavings.mobi> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Cambridge Savings Bank, provides financial and banking services. Complainant began using its CAMBRIDGE SAVINGS BANK mark in 1868. Complainant holds multiple trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its CAMBRIDGE SAVINGS BANK mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,472,254 issued July 24, 2001). Respondent, nianxin lin c/o NIAN XIN LIN, registered the <cambridgesavings.mobi> domain name on December 18, 2006. The disputed domain name resolves to a blank website which eventually redirects an Internet user to <gdd.cc>, which the Internet browser fails to find. 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 registered its CAMBRIDGE SAVINGS BANK mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,472,254 issued July 24, 2001). Previous panels have found that a trademark registration with a federal trademark authority is sufficient to establish rights in a complainant’s mark. See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. Santos, FA 565685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 21, 2005) (finding trademark registration with the USPTO was adequate to establish rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). While Respondent resides in China, previous panels also have concluded that a complainant is not required to hold a trademark registration in the same country as respondent. See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction); see also Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that it is irrelevant whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country of the respondent’s residence). Based on these past decisions, the Panel finds Complainant has established rights in its CAMBRIDGE SAVINGS BANK mark with the USPTO pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant alleges Respondent’s <cambridgesavings.mobi> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAMBRIDGE SAVINGS BANK mark. The disputed domain name deletes part of Complainant’s mark by removing the term, “bank,” removing the space between terms, and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.mobi.” Previous panels have found the deletions of a word and a space between the terms fail to adequately distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Asprey & Garrard Ltd v. Canlan Computing, D2000-1262 (WIPO Nov. 14, 2000) (finding that the domain name <asprey.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s ASPREY & GARRARD and MISS ASPREY marks); see also Wellness Int’l Network, LTD v. Apostolics.com, FA 96189 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 16, 2001) (finding that the domain name <wellness-international.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s WELLNESS INTERNATIONAL NETWORK); Gurney’s Inn Resort & Spa Ltd. v. Whitney, FA 140656 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2003) (“Punctuation and spaces between words are not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and a mark because punctuation and spaces are not reproducible in a domain name.”). Previous panels also have found that the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant while conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”). The Panel finds Respondent’s <cambridgesavings.mobi> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAMBRIDGE SAVINGS BANK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has alleged Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <cambridgesavings.mobi> domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds Complainant has made a sufficient prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may assume that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence). Respondent has not used, and has not made a demonstrable preparation to use, the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a blank website before resolving to <gdd.cc>, which the Internet browser fails to find. The Panel finds this use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s failure to use the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for 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 also TMP Int’l, Inc. v. Baker Enters., FA 204112 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“[T]he Panel concludes that Respondent's [failure to make an active use] of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). Respondent has failed to offer evidence, and there is no evidence in the record, proving Respondent is commonly known by the <cambridgesavings.mobi> domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the disputed domain name or Complainant’s CAMBRIDGE SAVINGS BANK mark. The WHOIS information lists Respondent as “nianxin lin c/o NIAN XIN LIN.” Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name). Therefore, the Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant alleges Respondent’s use of the <cambridgesavings.mobi> domain name is a part of a pattern of bad faith use and registration. Complainant has provided at least 271 different domain names that contain other trademarks, mainly different marks referring to other banks, which Respondent has registered (e.g., <bankofarizona.mobi> and <banquet-france.mobi>). The Panel finds this constitutes a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Philip Morris Inc. v. r9.net, D2003-0004 (WIPO Feb. 28, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s previous registration of domain names such as <pillsbury.net>, <schlitz.net>, <biltmore.net> and <honeywell.net> and subsequent registration of the disputed <marlboro.com> domain name evidenced bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also Armstrong Holdings, Inc. v. JAZ Assocs., FA 95234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) by registering multiple domain names that infringe upon others’ famous and registered trademarks). Respondent has failed to make an active use of the <cambridgesavings.mobi> domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a blank page which eventually resolves to <gdd.cc>, which the Internet browser fails to find. Respondent’s failure to actively use the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Tabriz, FA 921798 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 12, 2007) (holding that non-use of a confusingly similar domain name for over seven months constitutes bad faith registration and use); see also DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s failure to make an active use of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy). The Panel finds Complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <cambridgesavings.mobi> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist Dated: October 30, 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.