Rbsmortgage.net

The timeline behind rbsmortgage.net

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. Felix Omosele Claim Number: FA1001001302331 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 Felix Omosele (“Respondent”), United Kingdom. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <rbsmortgage.net>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. 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 January 11, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 12, 2010. On January 11, 2010, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <rbsmortgage.net> 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 January 13, 2010, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 2, 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@rbsmortgage.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 9, 2010, 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. 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 <rbsmortgage.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RBS mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <rbsmortgage.net> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <rbsmortgage.net> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, holds registrations for the RBS mark in connection with its banking and financial service businesses. Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations for the RBS mark with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) (Reg. No. 2,004,617 issued Jan. 5, 1996), the EU Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”) (Reg. No. 000,097,469 issued Mar. 23, 1998), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,185,538 issued Dec. 19, 2006), and many other countries worldwide. Respondent, Felix Omosele, registered the <rbsmortgage.net> domain name on September 9, 2009. Respondent’s disputed domain name redirects to a website with various commercial links to financial products and services that compete 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 Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations for the RBS mark with the UKIPO, the OHIM, the USPTO, and other countries worldwide (e.g., UKIPO Reg. No. 2,004,617 issued Jan. 5, 1996). The Panel finds Complainant has established rights in the RBS mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its multiple trademark registrations worldwide. 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 . . . .”). Complainant argues that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RBS mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent’s disputed domain name wholly incorporates Complainant’s mark, adds the generic term “mortgage,” and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.net.” The Panel finds that a domain name that includes the identical mark of Complainant combined with a generic term fails to distinguish the Respondent’s disputed domain name from the Complainant’s mark. 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 Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc. v. Rana, FA 304696 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2004) (finding that the addition of the generic term “collection” to Complainant’s HARRY POTTER mark failed to distinguish the domain name from the mark). The addition of a gTLD does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alveira, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis and does not create a domain name distinguishable from Complainant’s mark). Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RBS mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant has put forth a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). The Panel finds that Complainant has adequately established a prima facie case in these proceedings. Because Respondent has failed to respond to the allegations against it, the Panel may assume that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel, however, elects to consider the evidence in the record in light of the Policy ¶ 4(c) factors to determine if Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that “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 American 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.”). Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the WHOIS information lists the registrant as “Felix Omosele,” which demonstrates that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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”); 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 respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Respondent’s disputed domain name redirects to a website with various commercial links to financial products and services that compete with Complainant. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Royal Bank of Scotland Grp plc et al. v. Demand Domains, FA 714952 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 2, 2006) (finding that the operation of a commercial web directory displaying various links to third-party websites was not a use in connection with 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 also Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the use of the disputed domain name to operate a website displaying links to competing goods and services 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)). The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent’s disputed domain name redirects to a website containing commercial links to financial products and services that compete with Complainant. Such an activity clearly disrupts Complainant’s business, as Internet users seeking Complainant’s products will be diverted to sites featuring competing products. The Panel finds that this disruption of Complainant’s business and diversion of Internet users to Complainant’s competitors shows 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 Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names). Respondent’s incorporation of the Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name intends to attract Internet users seeking Complainant. When the Internet users are diverted to Respondent’s website and then click on any of the third-party links, it is presumed that Respondent is compensated on a pay-per-click basis. Additionally, due to Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name, customers may believe they have reached a website sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant, which could impair Complainant’s reputation. The Panel finds Respondent’s efforts to mislead Internet users and attract Complainant’s business in order to receive commercial gain constitute bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the Respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); see also University of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). The Panel finds 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 <rbsmortgage.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist Dated: February 23, 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.