Rhobank.co

The timeline behind rhobank.co

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 Under Technologies, Inc., dba Rho Technologies v. Susan Miller / Miller Bookkeeping Services Claim Number: FA2210002018272 PARTIES Complainant is Under Technologies, Inc., dba Rho Technologies (“Complainant”), represented by Jonathan Uffelman of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, United States of America. Respondent is Susan Miller / Miller Bookkeeping Services (“Respondent”), Connecticut. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <rhobank.co>, registered with NameCheap, 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. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 31, 2022; Forum received payment on October 31, 2022. On October 31, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <rhobank.co> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 November 1, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 21, 2022 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@rhobank.co. Also on November 1, 2022, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On November 29, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 states that it is a high-growth fintech company, providing businesses with a one-stop digital finance platform, which includes business banking, accounts payable, corporate cards, and more. Founded in 2018, Complainant officially launched in 2019 and by December 2020 was doing around $2 billion in annualized transaction volume. Complainant asserts rights in the RHO mark based upon its registration in the United States, registration date October 18, 2022, filing date August 6, 2020; and in the United Kingdom, registration date April 16, 2021, filing date December 8, 2020. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its RHO trademark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic word “BANK” and the country code top level domain name (“ccTLD”) “.co”. According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s RHO mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attempt to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Specifically, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant in a scheme aimed at defrauding third parties by sending them fake invoices from a <rhobank.co> email address. The disputed domain name redirects to Complainant’s legitimate website. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. The disputed domain name redirects to Complainant’s site. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the RHO mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant owns the mark RHO and uses it to provide digital finance services. Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 2020. The disputed domain name was registered on May 11, 2022. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The disputed domain name is used in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. The disputed domain name is redirected to Complainant’s legitimate 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." 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 relevant date for the Complainant’s mark is the filing date, see Lenovo (Beijing) Limited Corporation China v. jeonggon seo, FA 1591638 (Forum Jan. 16, 2015) (finding Complainant has rights in the LENOVO mark dating back to the February 20, 2003 filing date with the USPTO as the trademark application was ultimately successful); see also Hershey Co. v. Reaves, FA 967818 (Forum June 8, 2007) (finding that the complainant’s rights in the KISSES trademark through registration of the mark with the USPTO “date back to the filing date of the trademark application and predate [the] respondent’s registration”). Here, the filing date is 2020 for both the UK and the US trademarks. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s RHO mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic word “BANK” and the ccTLD “.co”. The addition of a generic term and ccTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“Respondent merely adds the term ‘supports’ and a ‘.org’ gTLD to the DELL mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Rockwell Automation v. Zhao Ke, FA 1760051 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) (“The disputed domain name <rockwellautomation.co> corresponds to Complainant's registered ROCKWELL AUTOMATION mark, with the space omitted and the ".co" top-level domain appended thereto. These alterations do not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for purposes of the Policy.”). Therefore, the panel finds that the <rhobank.co> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RHO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s RHO mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Susan Miller / Miller Bookkeeping Services.” Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attempt to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Emerson Electric Co. v. Adilcon Rocha, FA 1735949 (Forum July 11, 2017) (finding that respondent’s attempt to pass off as complainant through emails does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services and, as such, respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). As such, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The disputed domain name is redirected to Complainant’s legitimate website site. An unconnected party has no right or legitimate interest to use an otherwise deceptive trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), even if it is directed to the legitimate owner of the trademark. See Better Existence with HIV v. AAA, FA 1363660 (Forum Jan. 25, 2011) (finding that “even though the disputed domain name still resolves to Complainant’s own website, Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name in its own name fails to create any rights or legitimate interests in Respondent associated with the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)”). For all the above reasons, the panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attempt to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Using a misleading email address to pass off as Complainant and defraud unwary customers certainly constitutes bad faith under Policies ¶¶ 4(b)(iv) & 4(a)(iii). See Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use); see also CoorsTek, Inc. v. Gwendolyn K Bohn / CoorsTek Inc, FA 1764186 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) (“Respondent sent email to users seeking employment at Complainant’s business and asked for personal information such as a photo ID. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s emails constitute a phishing scheme and this indicates bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the disputed domain name is redirected to Complainant’s legitimate website. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under 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 <rhobank.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: November 29, 2022 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.