Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1720
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 08:02:36+00:00

Document:
The Respondent is Sara Richmond of Port Orchard, Washington, United States of America (“US”).
The disputed domain name <rbs-my.com> is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
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 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, 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 contains over 1,300 domain names.
The disputed domain name was registered on June 4, 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 <rbs-my.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s world famous trademark RBS. The fame of the trademark 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. Pritpal Jittla, 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 addition of the suffix “my” to the Complainant’s RBS trademark 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.
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.
It therefore seems 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.
Before the website was shut down due to fraudulent activities, the Respondent used the disputed domain name to engage in a phishing scam. 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.
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 <rbs-my.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks RBS, even with the addition of the generic and non-distinctive term “my” and the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” designation.
The Panel finds that the addition of a generic term, such as “my” does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name <rbs-my.com> from the Complainant’s well-known RBS trademarks.
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 Respondent.
In addition, the Respondent does not make a legitimate and noncommercial use of the disputed domain name as show by the Complainant who notices a phishing fraud attempt from the disputed domain name.
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.
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-my.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

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