Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1738
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:43:18+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is National Westminster Bank plc of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland represented by Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Chengbin Liu, ShanXi, China.
The disputed domain name <natwst.com> is registered with Hangzhou E-Business Services Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”).
On August 29, 2012, the Center transmitted an email to the Parties in both the Chinese and English language regarding the language of the proceeding. On August 29, the Respondent requested that Chinese be the language of proceeding. On August 30, 2012, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding.
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on September 5, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 25, 2012. An informal email Response was filed with the Center on September 23, 2012.
The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on October 11, 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 is a company incorporated in the United Kingdom and the owner of registrations in numerous jurisdictions worldwide for the trade mark NATWEST (the “Trade Mark”), the earliest (United Kingdom) registration dating from 1973. The Trade Mark is a well-known trade mark in the financial services industry.
The Respondent is an individual based in China.
The disputed domain name was registered on January 22, 2011.
The Complainant is one of the United Kingdom’s most well-known banks and has been trading under the Trade Mark in the United Kingdom since 1970. The Complainant offers its financial services worldwide under the Trade Mark and has spent a significant amount of money promoting and developing the Trade Mark. The Complainant currently has 7.5 million personal customers and 850,000 small business accounts.
The Complainant owns numerous domain names comprising the Trade Mark and operates several websites linked to its domain names, including, for example “www.natwest.com” and “www.natwest.co.uk”.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. It contains a misspelling of the Trade Mark. The only difference between the disputed domain name and the Trade Mark is that the disputed domain name is missing the letter “e” between the letters “w” and “s”. Anyone who sees the disputed domain name is bound to mistake it for a name related to the Complainant. The likelihood of confusion includes an obvious association with the Trade Mark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with or authorised by the Complainant in any way and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name was until November 2011 linked to a “phishing” website which closely resembled the Complainant’s official websites and was set up in order to “phish” for financial information in order to defraud the Complainant’s customers (the “Website”). The Website features prominently the Trade Mark.
After the Complainant was able to have the Website shut down, the Complainant’s representatives wrote to the Respondent in November 2011 asking for immediate transfer of the disputed domain name. The Respondent responded that the Respondent was merely an agent of the real owner of the disputed domain name. To date the Respondent has refused to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant.
For all of these reasons, the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
(3) Although the Respondent does not have a trade mark in respect of the disputed domain name, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is reasonable and the Respondent has never intended to cause any confusion with the Complainant’s website. The Respondent is willing to guarantee that the website it intends designing in future will not have any connection with the Complainant’s business at all.
Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement.
(3) The Website was an English language website.
(2) The Respondent is unable to submit a Response in English.
In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl, WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004; Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, WIPO Case No. D2006-0432).
It is clear from the content of the Website that the Respondent is proficient in the English language (Expoconsult B.V. trading as CMP Information v. Roc Guan, WIPO Case No. D2008-1600; Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Xiaole Zhang, WIPO Case No. D2008-1047). The Website was a sophisticated website using flawless English. The Panel also notes the Respondent was able to submit an informal email Response, notwithstanding the fact the Complaint was filed and served in English.
The Panel therefore finds that sufficient evidence has been adduced by the Complainant to show that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language (Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, supra). The Panel is also mindful of the need to ensure the proceeding is conducted in a timely and cost effective manner.
In all the circumstances, the Panel therefore finds it is not foreseeable that the Respondent would be unduly prejudiced, should English be adopted as the language of the proceeding.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration which predate the date of registration of the disputed domain name by over 40 years.
This is a clear-cut case of “typosquatting”. The disputed domain name is identical with the Trade Mark, save that the letter “e” is missing. The Panel also notes the Website featured prominently the Trade Mark in its correct spelling. The likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Trade Mark is high.
(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
There is no evidence that the Complainant has authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Mark. The Complainant has prior rights in the Trade Mark which precede the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name by decades. There is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption (Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name is used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, despite the bald assertions of the Respondent to the contrary, the disputed domain name has clearly been used in respect of the Website in order to defraud customers of the Complainant. This cannot possibly give rise to any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint fulfils the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
The Panel has no hesitation in rejecting the submissions of the Respondent and in concluding the Respondent has registered the disputed domain and set up the Website as a phishing site in order to defraud the Complainant’s customers. There can be no question that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the third condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied.
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 <natwst.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

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