Secureonlinecapitalone.com

The timeline behind secureonlinecapitalone.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.

DECISION Capital One Financial Corp. v. KFB Large / kfblarge Claim Number: FA1908001857162 PARTIES Complainant is Capital One Financial Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by John Gary Maynard, Virginia, USA. Respondent is KFB Large / kfblarge (“Respondent”), Ghana. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <secureonlinecapitalone.com> (‘the Domain Name’), registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc.. PANEL The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 13, 2019; the Forum received payment on August 13, 2019. On August 16, 2019, OwnRegistrar, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <secureonlinecapitalone.com> domain name is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. OwnRegistrar, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the OwnRegistrar, 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 August 20, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 9, 2019 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@secureonlinecapitalone.com. Also on August 20, 2019, 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. Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On September 10, 2019 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the 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 Complainant is the owner of the trademark CAPITAL ONE that is registered around the world including the USA and has been used since 1994. The Complainant owns capitalone.com. The Domain Name registered in 2019 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark containing it in its entirety and simply adding the generic terms ‘secure’ and ‘online’ and a gTLD “.com” which do not prevent such confusing similarity. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorized by the Complainant. The Domain Name has not been used so there is no bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial fair use. The Domain Name has not been used. Passive holding of a Domain Name containing a trademark and holding a Domain Name containing a mark with a reputation for no good reason is registration and use in bad faith. Using a privacy service is also indicative of bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is the owner of the trademark CAPITAL ONE that is registered around the world including the USA and has been used since 1994. The Complainant owns capitalone.com. The Domain Name registered in 2019 has not been used. 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. 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(f), 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The Domain Name in this Complaint combines the Complainant’s CAPITAL ONE mark (registered in the USA for financial services with first use recorded as 1994), the generic terms ‘secure’ and ‘online’ and the gTLD “.com.” The addition of the generic words ‘secure’ and ‘online’ to the Complainant’s mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s CAPITAL ONE mark, which is still recognisable in the Domain Name. See Abbott Laboratories v. Miles White, FA 1646590 (Forum Dec. 10, 2015) (holding that the addition of generic terms do not adequately distinguish a disputed domain name from complainant’s mark under Policy 4(a)(i)). The gTLD “.com” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint. As such, there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. There has been no use of the mark. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (Where the panel found inactive use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy 4(c)(i)). As such, the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to register a domain name containing the Complainant’s mark, which is well known for financial services. The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from or exploit the trademark of another. Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use. See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000). As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy and there is no need to consider any further alleged grounds of bad faith. 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 <secureonlinecapitalone.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: September 10, 2019 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.