Ubs-bank.org

The timeline behind ubs-bank.org

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.

DECISION UBS AG v. DomainName WebSelf / WebSelf.net Claim Number: FA1610001696808 PARTIES Complainant is UBS AG (“Complainant”), represented by Patrick J. Jennings of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is DomainName WebSelf / WebSelf.net (“Respondent”), Canada. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <ubs-bank.org>, registered with eNom, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon Sir Ian Barker as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 5, 2016; the Forum received payment on October 7, 2016. On October 6, 2016, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <ubs-bank.org> domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On October 7, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 27, 2016 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@ubs-bank.org. Also on October 7, 2016, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on October 7, 2016. On October 18, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon Sir Ian Barker as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant The Complainant is a large Swiss-based provider of banking and financial services worldwide with offices in more than 60 countries and some 60,000 employees. The Complainant owns many trademark registrations in numerous countries for the mark UBS and its distinctive logo. It registered a United States trademark for UBS on December 26, 1989 and has similar registrations in the European Union and China amongst many other countries. The Complainant uses this mark in its trading and marketing. The Complainant’s trademark is well-known internationally and has been recognized in several decisions under the Policy. The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s registered trademark plus the generic term “bank”. It is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests such as would entitle it to reflect the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name. The Complainant gave no such rights to the Respondent. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. None of the provisions of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply. The Respondent has not advanced any of these provisions. The website accessed by the disputed domain name contains numerous uses of the Complainant’s trademark and logo and features content about financial services identical to those provided by the Complainant. The Respondent is diverting Internet users to the Complainant’s website. The Respondent must be presumed to have known of the fame of the Complainant’s mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s website falsely gives the impression of some affiliation by the Respondent with the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent’s Response was very short. It also sent an email to Forum to similar effect. It appears to be a vendor of domain names. A client (unnamed) was said to have purchased the disputed domain name “through our process” but that the process detected that the website “didn’t respect our conditions” and the Respondent then closed the website on October 6, 2016. The Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to Forum! FINDINGS The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests such as would allow the Respondent to reflect in any way the Complainant’s trademark in a domain name. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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." 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 disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark plus the generic word “bank”. The addition of the word “bank” exacerbates the confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name because the Complainant’s business includes banking. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and thus paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant gave the Respondent no authority of any sort to reflect its trademark in the disputed domain names. This fact and the circumstances of the present case satisfy paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy in the absence of any Response from the Respondent. The Respondent could have claimed that one of the situations envisaged by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy applied to the registration of the disputed domain names, e.g., by invoking paragraph 4(c) to the satisfaction of the Panel that one of its three provisions applied in this case. Accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith It can be easily inferred that anyone using the word “bank” in a domain name which replicates the Complainant’s worldwide trademark, registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant’s mark would be known to anybody connected with banking. The disputed domain name clearly could create confusion and let Internet users think that the Respondent had some connection or affiliation with the Complainant. Particularly, when the Respondent’s website refers often to the Complainant’s trademark and logo and offers financial services, the Respondent’s conduct clearly infringes paragraph 4(a)(iv) of the Policy. Accordingly, the disputed domain name must have been registered and is being used in bad faith. The circumstances indicate that the Respondent would have had constructive notice at least, if not actual notice, of the Complainant’s trademark. Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied. This is a case of fairly blatant cybersquatting. 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 <ubs-bank.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Hon. Sir Ian Barker, Panelist Dated: October 21, 2016 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.