Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1731
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:17:52+00:00

Document:
Respondent is Dennis Oiboh of Ijebu Ode, Nigeria and WhoisGuard, WhoisGuard Protected, Daniel Nise of Los Angeles, California, United States of America (“US”).
The disputed domain name <rbsukgroup.org> is registered with eNom (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 26, 2012. On August 27, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 28, 2012, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on September 3, 2012, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on September 3, 2012.
Complainant is the registrant of the domain names <rbs.com>, which was created on September 6, 1994, and <rbsgroup.com>, which was created on April 30, 1995.
The disputed domain name was registered on February 16, 2012.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which it has rights by virtue of the fact that the dominant part of the disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s mark RBS. Complainant contends that the fame of the trademark has been confirmed in numerous previous UDRP decisions, including 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. 660550; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. rbspayments, NAF Claim No. 728805; 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. 671079; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc and The Royal Bank of Scotland International Limited v. Yorgi Brawn, NAF Claim No. 787945; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc., NAF Claim No. 813065; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. Caribbean Online International Ltd., NAF Claim No. 849147; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. Domain Discreet c/o ATTN: rbs-edinburgh.com, NAF Claim No. 986696; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. Teddy Jackson, NAF Claim No. 992134; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. Jim Bowen, NAF Claim No. 1045991; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. Ramzi Takch, NAF Claim No. 1106036; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. PrivacyProtect.org c/o Domain Admin, NAF Claim No. 1128875; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. UBA c/o ICB011857 ICB011857, NAF Claim No. 1189004; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. N/A c/o Bryan I., NAF Claim No. 1199346..
Complainant contends that the addition of the term “ukgroup” will not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant part of the disputed domain name. Complainant states that the term “uk” which refers to the United Kingdom is completely insufficient to dispel user confusion from inevitably occurring. Complainant argues that doing so very likely exacerbates rather than ameliorates the confusion. Complainant reasons that well-known and widely followed naming conventions in forming domain names, Internet users in a given country or who have an interest in that country and desire to reach a website of a corporation or other entity operating in that country would likely think to construct a domain name by simply appending the name of the country to the RBS mark.
Complainant contends that the word abbreviation “group” reflects Complainant’s business name “The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc”. Complainant states that the addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “org” does not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant portion of the disputed domain name and is therefore irrelevant to determine the confusing similarity between the trademark and the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar with Complainant’s trademark.
Complainant next contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant states that Respondent does not have any registered trademarks or trade names corresponding to the disputed domain name. Complainant also contends that Respondent may not claim any rights established by common usage. Additionally, Complainant has not granted Respondent any license or authorization of any other kind to use the RBS trademark. Further, Complainant states that Respondent is not an authorized dealer of Complainant’s products and has never had a business relationship with Complainant. Additionally, Complainant argues that there is not a disclaimer on the website describing the non-existent relationship with Complainant.
According to Complainant, Respondent obviously knew of Complainant’s legal rights in the name RBS at the time of the registration and it was the fame of the trademark that motivated Respondent to register the disputed domain name. Complainant states that Respondent has used disputed domain name to pass itself off as the Complainant in order to defraud Complainant’s customers through a fraudulent website identical to Complainant’s. Additionally, Complainant contends that Respondent used the disputed domain name to “phish” for financial information in an attempt to defraud Complainant’s customers.
The Center received informal emails communications from Respondent on September 5 and 7, 2012. The Respondent did not provide a formal Response to Complainant’s contentions.
In view of Respondent’s failure to submit a formal Response, the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding based on Complainant’s undisputed allegations for which there are support, pursuant to the Rules, paragraphs 5(e), 14(a), and 15(a), and draw such inferences it considers appropriate, pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 14(b).
Complainant has demonstrated that it owns rights in the registered trademark RBS in several countries or regions, including the United Kingdom, United States of America, and the European Union.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s RBS marks. It is well-settled that the addition of merely generic, descriptive or geographical wording to a trademark in a domain name would normally be insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP. Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Evezon Co. Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2000-0437. The addition of the characters “ukgroup” to Complainant’s RBS trademark does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. Internet users would be confused into thinking that the disputed domain name was associated with Complainant’s business in the UK. Additionally, Internet users would assume that the term “group” referred to Complainant’s business name “The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc”.
Under the Policy, legitimate interests in a domain name may be demonstrated by showing that: (i) before any notice of this dispute, Respondent used, or demonstrably prepared to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; (ii) Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Policy, paragraph 4(c).
The undisputed record indicates that Respondent registered the disputed domain name 18 years after Complainant established rights in the RBS trademark (UK Registration No. 2004617). Given the record before the Panel, it is a reasonable inference that Respondent was aware of Complainant and Complainant’s business when Respondent registered the disputed domain name and that Respondent deliberately incorporated Complainant’s RBS trademark in the disputed domain name with intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers.
The Panel, especially in the absence of any formal response from Respondent, considers that the circumstances described in the Policy, paragraph 4(c), of proof of a right or legitimate interest by Respondent in the disputed domain name are not likely to exist. For these reasons, in accordance with the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii), the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
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 <rbsukgroup.org> be transferred to Complainant.

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