Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1723
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 13:16:16+00:00

Document:
The Respondent is Marc Anthnio of Umuahia, Nigeria.
The disputed domain name <rbs-onlinex.com> is registered with eNom (the “Registrar”).
The Center appointed Mihaela Maravela as the sole panelist in this matter on October 5, 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 Edinburgh, Scotland in 1727 and is one of the oldest banks in the UK. It was incorporated as a public limited company in UK in 1968. The Complainant is a worldwide financial service provider, with an established presence in Europe, the Middle East, the United States, South America, and Asia.
In addition, the Complainant owns an extensive international portfolio of registered trademarks for the term “rbs”, either by itself or in phrases incorporating it, including RBS BANK and RBS BANKLINE. Many of such registrations are as Community trademarks.
The disputed domain name <rbs-onlinex.com> was registered on May 26, 2012. The Respondent’s website is at time of rendering this decision suspended, and the only indication as to its former contents has been provided by the Complainant, as a print out of the screen of the website, filed with the Complaint.
On June 13, 2012, the Complainant addressed a cease and desist letter to the Respondent, by email, followed up on July 4, 2012 and, respectively on July 18, 2012. The Respondent did not reply to any of these letters.
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name <rbs-onlinex.com> is confusingly similar to the widely-known trademark RBS, which has been registered by the Complainant around the world. The dominant part of the disputed domain name <rbs-onlinex.com> reproduces the trademark RBS and is bound to create confusion and a risk of association with the Complainant’s trademark. Addition of the suffix “onlinex” only enhances the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark RBS, strengthening the impression that the former belongs to, or is affiliated to the latter.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not legally or economically related to the Complainant and has never been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use in any manner the trademark RBS. The Respondent is not making any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. On the contrary, the Respondent used the disputed domain name to pass off as the Complainant, as it replicated the contents of the Complainant’s website “www.rbs.com” in order to, as the Complainant alleges, “phish for financial information in an attempt to defraud the Complainant’s customers”.
It is essential to dispute resolution proceedings that fundamental due process requirements be met. Such requirements include that a respondent has notice of proceedings that may substantially affect its rights. The Policy, and the Rules establish procedures intended to assure that respondents are given adequate notice of proceedings commenced against them, and a reasonable opportunity to respond (see, e.g., paragraph 2(a), Rules).
On account of the Respondent’s default in providing a response to the allegations of the Complainant, the Panel is directed to decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the complaint (Rules, paragraph 14(a)). Pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel will draw such inferences from the Respondent’s default as it considers appropriate and certain factual conclusions may be drawn by the Panel on the basis of the Complainant’s undisputed representations (Rules, paragraph 15(a)).
These registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name, i.e. May 26, 2012.
As to matter of similarity for the purposes of the Policy, the Panel has proceeded to compare the disputed domain name to the trademark rights of the Complainant which have been proved.
The disputed domain name <rbs-onlinex.com> incorporates entirely the Complainant’s trademark RBS, a trademark found in numerous UDRP decisions to be distinctive and well-known worldwide (see The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc v. irbs, WIPO Case No. D2012-0854; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc v. Contact Privacy Inc. / Nat, WIPO Case No. D2012-0856; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc v. Fastdomain Inc / Hyper Link Technology, Jeetender Rajouria, WIPO Case No. D2012-0666) and strong, due to its use, investment in advertising and brand protection, as well as its presence in protected trademarks and a considerable number of domain names worldwide (see The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc v. Arbechay, Adalbrecht Engelbert, WIPO Case No. D2012-0665).
Addition of the suffix “onlinex” and the hyphen does not in this Panel’s opinion contribute distinctiveness to the disputed domain name. On contrary, is rather fitted to enhance the impression that the disputed domain name belongs to or is affiliated with the Complainant since the Complainant has a broad online presence and “onlinex” can be seen as an “online exchange”.
The impression of the Internet user will likely be that the disputed domain name belongs to the Complainant or at least is connected to the Complainant and its services. Even in the latter case, it is the Panel’s view that such connection is all the more heightened where the trademark is well-known (see also The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc v. Arbechay, Adalbrecht Engelbert, WIPO Case No. D2012-0665).
Further, as to the addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com”, this does not bear any relevance to the comparison at hand, as use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants, and has no impact on the overall impression made by the dominant part of the disputed domain name, “rbs” for purposes of the Policy.
The consensus view of UDRP panels is that the burden of proof in establishing no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name rests with the complainant in as far as making out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent (see WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.1.).
Absent any response or defense by the Respondent, the Panel gives weight to the Complainant’s affirmation that no license or authorization was ever given to the Respondent to use the trademark RBS (see Guerlain S.A. v. Peikang, WIPO Case No. D2000-0055 on absence of license or permission excluding bona fide or legitimate use).
Further, the Respondent’s failure to respond to or act upon the Complainant’s cease and desist letter also indicates to the Panel that the disputed domain name registration lacks the basis of entitlement or legitimate interest.
The Panel further finds that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, that it is not making legitimate, non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, that it is not authorized by the Complainant to use the disputed domain name and that there is no other basis on which it could claim to have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in this case.
Finally, the evidence submitted by the Complainant as to the contents of the website before it was taken down which appear to represent a replica of the Complainant’s “www.rbs.com” website is indication of bad faith on the part of the Respondent, irrespective of whether such replication was intended for a phishing scam for financial information or mere passing off, further supporting the Panel’s view that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to profit from the Complainant’s trademark goodwill and reputation, which is incompatible with making a legitimate, non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
To fulfil the third requirement, the Complainant must prove that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The print screen submitted by the Complainant as evidence showing that the Respondent replicated the contents of the Complainant’s website “www.rbs.com” on its website, including the RBS logo, is in itself sufficient proof of registration in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, with the intention of creating confusion with the Complainant’s genuine services for commercial gain. Moreover, currently on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves it is now indicated that the website was blocked by Web Anti-Virus for reason of phishing URL.
The Panel is of the opinion that any possibly contemplated use of the domain name cannot avoid amounting to passing off, given the confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademark and associated online banking services.
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 <rbs-onlinex.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

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