Lexingtonfinanceinc.com

The timeline behind lexingtonfinanceinc.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 American International Group, Inc. v. Brian Lexington Claim Number: FA0912001296987 PARTIES Complainant is American International Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Claudia W. Stangle, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Brian Lexington (“Respondent”), Ontario, Canada. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <lexingtonfinanceinc.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. 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. Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 1, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 2, 2009. On December 2, 2009, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <lexingtonfinanceinc.com> domain name is registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Godaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, 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 December 16, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 5, 2010 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@lexingtonfinanceinc.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On January 13, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 <lexingtonfinanceinc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LEXINGTON mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <lexingtonfinanceinc.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <lexingtonfinanceinc.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, American International Group, Inc., operates a variety of financial services businesses, which it provides through member companies. Complainant provides insurance services under its member company Lexington Insurance Company. Complainant holds a trademark registration for the LEXINGTON mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,499,895 issued August 9, 1988). Respondent registered the <lexingtonfinanceinc.com> domain name on October 19, 2009. The disputed domain name resolves to a website purporting to offer loan services and requiring Internet users to pay an advance fee when completing paperwork for Respondent’s loan services. The disputed domain name displays Complainant’s official address on the website. 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 Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based on the registration of its mark with the USPTO. See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world); see also American Int’l Group, Inc. v. Morris, FA 569033 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2005) (“Complainant has established rights in the AIG mark through registration of the mark with several trademark authorities throughout the world, including the United States Patent and Trademark office (‘USPTO’)”). Respondent’s <lexingtonfinanceinc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LEXINGTON mark. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s LEXINGTON mark, adds the descriptive phrase “finance inc” and adds the generic top-level domain “.com.” The Panel finds the addition of the descriptive phrase “finance inc.” fails to diminish the confusing similarities between Respondent’s disputed domain name and Complainant’s LEXINGTON mark. See Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Am. Express Co. v. Buy Now, FA 318783 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 14, 2004) (“In the view of the Panel, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMERICAN EXPRESS and AMEX marks. Each disputed domain name contains the AMERICAN EXPRESS or AMEX marks in its entirety and merely adds nondistinctive, descriptive and generic terms, some of which describe Complainant’s business.”). The Panel also notes the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is irrelevant for the purposes of a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Whitney Nat’l Bank v. Easynet Ltd, FA 944330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (“The additions of generic words with an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business and a gTLD renders the disputed domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Dell Inc. v. Steve Kerry d/b/a North West Enterprise Inc., FA 705267 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 21, 2006) (“[T]he Panel finds that the addition of generic top level domain names “.com” and “.net” in various places of the domain name does not negate the confusingly similar aspects of the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel concludes that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LEXINGTON mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges Respondent fails to possess rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds Complainant has successfully presented a sufficient prima facie case supporting its allegations. Thus, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove it possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”). Respondent has failed to respond to the allegations in these proceedings, thus the Panel may presume Complainant’s contentions in the Complaint are true. See Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertions in this regard.”). However, the Panel elects to examine the record to determine whether Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). Complainant asserts Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information reflects the registrant for the disputed domain name is “Brian Lexington.” Complainant alleges Respondent has no license or permission to use Complainant’s mark in any manner and Respondent has failed to put forth evidence that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Although the WHOIS information indicates that Respondent’s last name is Lexington, the Panel finds no corroborating evidence in the record, and therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Yoga Works, Inc. v. Arpita, FA 155461 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not “commonly known by” the <shantiyogaworks.com> domain name despite listing its name as “Shanti Yoga Works” in its WHOIS contact information because there was “no affirmative evidence before the Panel that the respondent was ever ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name prior to its registration of the disputed domain name”); see also City News & Video v. Citynewsandvideo, FA 244789 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 5, 2004) (“Although Respondent’s WHOIS information lists its name as ‘citynewsandvideo,’ there is no evidence before the Panel to indicate that Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the disputed domain name <citynewsandvideo.com> pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”). Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to acquire Internet users’ monies by requiring an up-front fee when purporting to offer loan services. Furthermore, Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant by providing Complainant’s official mailing address on the website resolving from the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that this use fails to constitute 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 Kmart of Mich., Inc. v. Cone, FA 655014 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 25, 2006) (The panel found the respondent’s attempt to pass itself of as the complainant was not 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) when the respondent used the disputed domain name to present users with a website that was nearly identical to the complainant’s website); see also Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Nelson, FA 241972 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 29, 2004) (finding that using a domain name in a fraudulent scheme to deceive Internet users into providing their credit card and personal information is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website offering competing financial services. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business, which constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assoc., FA 914854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (holding that where the respondent’s website featured hyperlinks to competing websites and included a link to the complainant’s website, the respondent’s use of the <redeemaamiles.com> domain name constituted disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). Respondent is attempting to profit by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to acquire Internet users’ monies by requiring an up-front fee when purporting to offer loan services, while attempting to pass itself off as Complainant. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Iza, FA 245960 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2004) (finding that using a domain name that “is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, redirects Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s billing website, and is used to fraudulently acquire personal information from Complainant’s clients” is evidence of bad faith registration and use); see also Black & Decker Corp. v. Clinical Evaluations, FA 112629 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2002) (holding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to commercial websites, unrelated to the complainant and presumably with the purpose of earning a commission or pay-per-click referral fee did not evidence rights or legitimate interests in the domain name). Furthermore, Respondent has reproduced Complainant’s official contact information on the website resolving from the disputed domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant by creating the impression an Internet user has reached Complainant’s online presence. The Panel finds Respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as Complainant constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Vivendi Universal Games v. Ballard, FA 146621 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2002) (finding that where the complainant’s mark was appropriated at registration, and a copy of the complainant’s website was used at the domain name in order to facilitate the interception of the complainant’s customer’s account information, the respondent’s behavior evidenced bad faith use and registration of the domain name); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith where the respondent hosted a website that “duplicated Complainant’s mark and logo, giving every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant’s business . . . to perpetrate a fraud upon individual shareholders who respected the goodwill surrounding the AIG 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 <lexingtonfinanceinc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: January 27, 2010 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.