Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1727
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:26:58+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“UK”), represented by Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services, UK.
The Respondent is Dhenica Reyes of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
The disputed domain name <rbsbonline.com> is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
The Center appointed Alain Bensoussan as the sole panelist in this matter on October 8, 2012. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
The Complainant was incorporated in Scotland in 1727, and was incorporated as a public limited company in the UK in 1968. It is one of the oldest banks in the UK. The Complainant opened its first office in the United States of America (“US”) in 1960 and is currently one of the largest providers of liquidity in the US. The Complainant offers its financial services worldwide under the mark RBS and has expended a significant amount of money in promoting and developing this particular mark.
The Complainant owns a substantial international portfolio of registered trademarks for RBS and also marks incorporating the term “rbs” and other terms. These registrations cover most of the countries and regions in the world, including the European Union, US and also Malaysia where the Respondent, as identified by the Registrar, is located. These registrations were filed as early as November 1994. The Complainant also owns a significant number of domain names that incorporate the mark RBS, including the domain names: <rbs.com> and <rbsgroupcom>, registered in 1994 and 1995, respectively, and from which it operates its website. The list of the “rbs” domain names owned by the Complainant includes names such as: <rbs-online.biz> and <rbs-online.mobi>, totaling a number of over 1,300 domain names.
The disputed domain name was registered on June 2, 2012. The Panel has no information on the Respondent, her services or activities, as the Respondent did not participate in the proceedings. The only indication as to the former contents of the website of the Respondent is given by a print out of the website that the Complainant filed with the Complaint.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <rbsbonline.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s world famous trademark RBS. The fame of the trademarks RBS has been confirmed in numerous previous UDRP decisions (see Royal Bank of Scotland Group v. Stealth Commerce v. a. k. a. Telmex Management Services, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2002-0155; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc and The Royal Bank of Scotland plc v. “Christopher Graham” or “John Graham” dba GRA Marketing CL, WIPO Case No. D2001-0626; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc and National Westminster Bank plc v. PritpalJittla, NAF Claim No. 0660550; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. rbspayments, NAF Claim No. 0728805 and The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Citizens Financial Group, Inc., Churchill Insurance Co. Ltd., Hanco ATM Systems Ltd. & Privilege Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Domaincar c/o Perthshire Marketing a/k/a Domaincar, NAF Claim No. 0671079).
The Complainant contends that the addition of the suffix “online” will not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant part of the disputed domain name, ”rbs”, instantly recognizable as a world famous trademark. Considering the fact the Complainant is rather active online, the suffix “online” in combination with RBS is rather fitted to strengthen the impression that the disputed domain name belongs to or is affiliated with the Complainant. The Complainant adds that the likehood of confusion includes an obvious association with the trademark of the Complainant.
According to the Complainant, with reference to the reputation of the trademark RBS, there is a considerable risk that the public will perceive the disputed domain name either as a domain name owned by the Complainant or that there is some kind of commercial relation between the Respondent and the Complainant.
The Complainant concludes that, by using the Complainant’s trademarks, the Respondent exploits the goodwill and the image of these trademarks, which may result in dilution and other damage for the Complainant’s trademark creating a risk of confusion.
The Complainant has not found that the Respondent has any registered trademarks or trade names corresponding to the disputed domain name, nor found anything that would indicate that it is commonly known under the dispute domain name.
According to the Complainant, the Respondent’s failure to respond to the cease and desist letter further indicates that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant concludes that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to pass itself off as the Complainant in order to drive traffic and customers to her site, potentially phishing for customers’ financial information.
The Complainant contends that the trademark RBS is a well-known and reputed with a substantial and widespread reputation in the finance industry worldwide. It is obvious that the Respondent was aware of the rights the Complainant has in the trademark and the value of said trademark, as the point of the registration.
He adds that, before the website was shut down due to fraudulent activities, the Respondent used the disputed domain name to engage in a phishing scam. In other words, the Respondent was using the disputed domain name to deceive the Complainant’s customers and manipulate them into divulging sensitive financial information. Thus, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under the Policy and even if the website is now currently inactive, such passive holding could still constitute an act of bad faith.
The Panel finds that RBS is a well-known mark that has received worldwide recognition and that the disputed domain name <rbsbonline.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks RBS, even with the addition of the generic and non-distinctive expression “online” and the generic top-level domain gTLD “.com” designation.
The Panel finds that the addition of a generic expression, such as “online” does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s well-known trademarks. It would rather increase the risk of confusion, as “online” is a word that is often brought into connection with financial services, such as “online banking”, etc. The Internet user is necessary led to believe there is a connection between the disputed domain name and the Complainant and its services.
The Panel finds that the presence of the letter “b” between the terms “rbs” and “online” is not likely to reduce the risk of confusion. In this Panel’s view, Internet users may read the disputed domain name and pronounce it as “rbs be online”.
The Respondent has failed to participate in the proceedings and, absent any indication as to her activities and needs, the Panel has to rely on the Complainant’s representations to try and find whether the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Moreover, there is no element which could show that before the proceedings the Respondent was using the disputed domain name or a trade name corresponding to the disputed domain name in relation with a bona fide offering of goods and services under the disputed domain name and that the Respondent was known under the disputed domain name. The fact that the Respondent did not respond to the cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant underlines the lack of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent to the Panel.
In addition, the Respondent does not make a legitimate and noncommercial use of the disputed domain name as show by the Complainant who noticed a phishing fraud attempt from the disputed domain name.
Given this situation, the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant sufficiently showed that the Respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods and services under the disputed domain name and has not been commonly known under the disputed domain name. and finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
(iv) by using the domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to her website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
According to the provided screenshot of the website at the disputed domain name, the purported financial services which were previously offered were targeting the Complainant’s customers and the Respondent was using a website layout and logo identical to the Complainant’s. This Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent was potentially phishing for customers’ financial information and such a risk can not be tolerated under the bad faith analysis.
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <rbsbonline.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.