Rbs-plc.com

The timeline behind rbs-plc.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 The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. Reynold n/a c/o Reynold A Rios Claim Number: FA0909001286785 PARTIES Complainant is The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (“Complainant”), represented by James A. Thomas, of Troutman Sanders LLP, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is Reynold n/a c/o Reynold A Rios (“Respondent”), Texas, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <rbs-plc.com>, registered with The Registry At Info Avenue d/b/a IA Registry. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. John J. Upchurch as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 29, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 30, 2009. On October 9, 2009, The Registry At Info Avenue d/b/a IA Registry confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <rbs-plc.com> domain name is registered with The Registry At Info Avenue d/b/a IA Registry and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. The Registry At Info Avenue d/b/a IA Registry has verified that Respondent is bound by The Registry At Info Avenue d/b/a IA Registry 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 9, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 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@rbs-plc.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 4, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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 <rbs-plc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RBS mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <rbs-plc.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <rbs-plc.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, provides a variety of banking and financial products and services to its customers under its RBS mark. Complainant has registered its RBS mark with multiple governmental trademark authorities including: the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) (Reg. No. 2,004,617 issued November 23, 1994); the European Union Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”) (Reg. No. 97,469 issued March 23, 1998); and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,185,538 issued December 19, 2006). Complainant owns and operates the <rbs.com> domain name and its resolving website to provide financial and banking services to its clients online. Respondent, Reynold n/a c/o Reynold A Rios, registered the <rbs-plc.com> domain name on July 11, 2009. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that closely resembles Complainant’s actual website resolving from the <rbs.com> domain name by incorporating Complainant’s RBS mark and Complainant’s logos. Respondent refers to itself as “The Royal Bank of Scotland” in several areas on the disputed domain name’s resolving website. Respondent’s website also features a section identified as “Login” whereby Respondent seeks to obtain personal financial information from Complainant’s unsuspecting customers such as “Ref ID” and “Pin Code.” Upon clicking on the “Register” link on Respondent’s website, Internet users are directed to a purported “Online Application Form” where Respondent solicits extensive sensitive information including the user’s “Account Type” and “Account Password.” 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 established rights in its RBS mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through the registration of the mark with the UKIPO (Reg. No. 2,004,617 issued November 23, 1994), the OHIM (Reg. No. 97,469 issued March 23, 1998), and the USPTO (Reg. No. 3,185,538 issued December 19, 2006). See 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); see also The Royal Bank of Scot. Group plc v. TRB, FA 622345 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 22, 2006) (“The Panel accepts Complainant’s registration of the THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND mark with the United Kingdom Patent Office as evidence of Complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Complainant contends that Respondent’s <rbs-plc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RBS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s RBS mark in its entirety with the mere addition of a hyphen, the addition of the descriptive letters “plc,” and the affixation of the generic top-level domain “.com.” The “plc” string of letters likely alludes to the acronym for the well-known form-of-business designation “public limited company,” which describes Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that these alterations fail to alleviate the confusing similarity between Complainant’s RBS mark and Respondent’s <rbs-plc.com> domain name. Moreover, Respondent’s repeated references to itself as “The Royal Bank of Scotland” on the disputed domain name’s resolving website adds to the confusing similarity. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <rbs-plc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RBS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Amazon.com, Inc. v. Dinoia, FA 536549 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 26, 2005) (finding that adding a common form of corporate designation to the domain name did not save <amazonltd.com> from confusing similarity to the complainant’s mark); 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 Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has alleged that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <rbs-plc.com> domain name. Based upon the allegations made in the Complaint, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and the burden of proof shifts to Respondent. Since Respondent has not responded to the Complaint, the Panel will examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). See Mason Cos., Inc. v. Chan, FA 1216166 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 4, 2008) (“The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the [disputed domain] name. Thus, the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate that it does have such rights or interests.”); see also Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because the respondent never submitted a response or provided the panel with evidence to suggest otherwise). Respondent’s <rbs-plc.com> domain name domain name resolves to a website that mimics Complainant’s financial services website. The Panel finds that Respondent seeks to pass itself off as Complainant and presumably profit from this fraudulent diversion of Internet users. Respondent’s scheme to pass itself off as Complainant is further perpetuated by Respondent’s repeated reference to itself as “The Royal Bank of Scotland” on the website resolving from the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name cannot be regarded as a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant’s mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Miranda, FA 993017 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 9, 2007) (“Because [the] respondent in this case is also attempting to pass itself off as [the] complainant, presumably for financial gain, the Panel finds the respondent is not using the <mortgageresearchcenter.org> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). According to the pertinent WHOIS information, Respondent registered the disputed domain name under the “Reynold n/a c/o Reynold A Rios” name. This information bears no resemblance to the disputed domain name and there is no evidence in the record to the contrary. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <rbs-plc.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). This fraudulent diversion of Internet users to the disputed domain name for commercial gain is also advanced by Respondent’s deceptive use of the disputed domain name to trick Internet users into divulging their personal banking information to Respondent, believing in fact that they are communicating with Complainant. This scheme is referred to as “phishing” and the Panel finds that such trickery provides additional evidence that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii), respectively. Therefore, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 690796 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <allianzcorp.biz> domain name to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users seeking Complainant’s financial services was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Capital One Fin. Corp. v. Howel, FA 289304 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding that using a domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that imitated the complainant’s credit application website and attempted to fraudulently acquire personal information from the complainant’s clients was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent uses the <rbs-plc.com> domain name, which was registered on July 11, 2009, to attract Internet users seeking Complainant’s services by passing itself off as Complainant. Respondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s RBS mark to lure Internet users to its website in order to profit from the goodwill that Complainant has acquired in its RBS mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto., FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) through the respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its fraudulent website by using the complainant’s famous marks and likeness); see also Carey Int’l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 29, 2005) (“[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). Furthermore, the Panel finds that Respondent is engaging in a fraudulent “phishing” scheme by registering and using the <rbs-plc.com> domain name to divert Internet users to a website that displays Complainant’s mark and trade name, mimicking Complainant’s own website, in order to induce Internet users to reveal personal banking information. The Panel finds that Respondent’s attempt to fraudulently acquire such information constitutes “phishing” and thus, provides additional evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Maniac State, FA 608239 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 19, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was using the <wellsbankupdate.com> domain name in order to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of the complainant’s customers); see also HOPE worldwide, Ltd. v. Jin, FA 320379 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2004) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith because it redirected Internet users to a website that imitated the complainant’s website and was used to fraudulently acquire personal information from the complainant’s potential associates). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <rbs-plc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. John J. Upchurch, Panelist Dated: November 18, 2009 NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM 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.