Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-0705
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:57:41+00:00

Document:
The Respondent is Whois Privacy Service of Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China1.
The disputed domain name <coamericabank.com> is registered with Fabulous.com.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 21, 2011. On April 26, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to Fabulous.com. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 27, 2011, Fabulous.com transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center appointed Debrett G. Lyons as the sole panelist in this matter on May 25, 2011. 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 provides banking and other financial services.
- Those services have been offered under the name COMERICA which it has registered as a trade mark.
- The disputed domain name was registered on November 26, 2005.
- There has been no commercial or other relationship between the parties.
- At the time the Complaint was filed, a website corresponding with the disputed domain carried multiple links to third party financial institutions and financial services providers.
- The Complainant petitions the Panel to order transfer of the disputed domain name from the Respondent to the Complainant.
The Complainant asserts trade mark rights in COMERICA and alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trade mark.
The Respondent broadly denies those allegations.
The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition2 asks at paragraph 4.9: Who is the proper respondent in a case involving a privacy or proxy registration service? In its answer to that question it notes that “there is wide recognition among panels that a complainant or provider who has correctly sent a UDRP case-communication to the WhoIs-listed registrant of record for a disputed domain name will (at least in the absence of better information) normally have discharged its communication responsibility under the UDRP Rules”.
In this case, there is no indication that the Complainant knew or might have reasonably ascertained the identity of any underlying registrant. In response to a request from the Center for registrant verification, the concerned registrar did not disclose an underlying registrant of the disputed domain name that differed from the privacy registration service which appeared in the WhoIs at the time the Complaint was filed. Nor in the evidence is there any other indication of the identity of an underlying registrant. Whilst a Response was filed, it was said to be filed by the “Domain Administrator”.
In the absence of any indication that the Complainant might have more appropriately moved against another party and given the fact that a timely Response purporting to defend the registration was received by the Center, the Panel is satisfied that it was and is proper for the Complainant to name the Respondent as has been done.
The remaining question is whether the disputed domain name <coamericabank.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. For the purposes of testing confusing similarity, the generic top-level domain “.com” can be ignored.5 The disputed domain name then differs from the trade mark, firstly, by the addition of the word “bank” and the insertion of the letter “a”, these being on the whole non-distinctive. Countless earlier decisions under this Policy have held that the addition of a non-distinctive integer such as “bank” or “a” to a trade mark does little to avoid confusion. Moreover, the Panel is of the opinion that the trade mark would be readily perceived in the disputed domain name by most people.
The Panel finds that, in overall resemblance, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark and so finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first limb of the Policy.
The Complainant has the burden to establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Nevertheless, it is well-settled that the Complainant need only make out a prima facie case, after which the onus shifts to the Respondent to rebut such prima facie case by demonstrating rights or legitimate interests6.
The WhoIs data does not support any conclusion that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent has trade mark rights in the disputed domain name, registered or not.
The Respondent has not provided any evidence that it used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to notice of the dispute. Counter indications arise from the evidence provided by the Complainant of a website corresponding with the disputed domain name which carries a link farm to third party financial institutions and financial services providers.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name is parked. The Respondent recognizes that advertisements are “automatically optimised to the interests of visitors to the domain are being shown”. The Respondent seeks to establish its bona fide by arguing that “the parked page is providing a service to visitors to the domain by giving them the opportunity to click on advertisements for goods and services that might interest them”.
Whilst the Respondent might indeed be correct that visitors could be interested in the automatically generated advertisements, it seems not to appreciate the cardinal fact that such an interest cannot be generated by use of another’s trade mark, least of all a trade mark with a reputation in a field of business to which those advertisements of third party services relate. The Respondent is, as it states, free to spark that interest by use of a generic domain name, however in circumstances where the trade mark COMERICA is known and registered, the Panel is unwilling to recognize use of the words “go America bank” on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves as good faith use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark for the purposes of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.
The Respondent attempts to align itself with the good faith use by domainers who restrict themselves to the use and registration of purely generic terms. It is fair to say that the great majority of UDRP panels have recognized the legitimacy of business models premised on the registration, use and sale of domain names having purely generic appeal. Equally dominant is the consensus view of the majority (followed by this Panel) that good faith use of that kind requires vigilant avoidance of the registration or use of domain names which might be confusingly similar to third party trade marks.
In this instance the Panel finds that the Respondent’s actions fall squarely under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy in that the Respondent (either directly or through the action of others for whom it is vicariously responsible) has intentionally used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a web site or on-line location, by creating the requisite likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark.
For all 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 <coamericabank.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
1 See discussion below at Section 6A.
3 The Complainant is lacking essential detail of the Complainant’s registered rights. Exhibit 3 to the Complaint merely lists Complainant’s trade marks by name. There is no indication of jurisdiction, registration status, proprietorship, or images of composite marks which include device elements. The Complainant might have failed were it not for the fact that the body of the Complaint makes reference to USPTO trade mark registration 1,251,846. The Panel has discretion to make limited research of its own volition in order to ascertain factual matters. The Panel has used the USPTO’s TARR service and determined that registration 1251846 is valid and subsisting. It is for the word mark COMERICA, was filed on September 13, 1982 and has been renewed. It stands in the name of the Complainant. The Complainant would be well cautioned to provide proof of such entitlement in any later UDRP proceedings. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Periasami Malain, NAF Claim No. FA705262 (“Complainant’s registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office of the trademark, STATE FARM, establishes its rights in the STATE FARM mark pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).”); see also Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, NAF Claim No. FA174052 (finding that the complainant’s registration of the MADD mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office establishes the complainant’s rights in the mark for purposes of Policy paragraph 4(a)(i)).
4 It is alleged (and not contested) that the trade mark has been used continuously since 1982 and that in the 2010 financial year the Complainant controlled assets in excess of USD53 billion. It is said that the Complainant is amongst the 25 largest US banking institutions.
5 See Gardline Surveys Ltd v. Domain Finance Ltd., NAF Claim No. FA153545 (“The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.”).
6 See, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, NAF Claim No. FA741828; AOL LLC v. Jordan Gerberg, NAF Claim No. FA780200.

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