Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1713
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 20:37:34+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 of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The Respondent is Natwest, Nick Warren of London United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The disputed domain name <natwestbk-plc.com> is registered with Cloud Group Ltd. (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 27, 2012, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the disputed domain name.
The Center appointed David H. Tatham as the sole panelist in this matter on October 9, 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 long and well established company offering its financial services on a worldwide scale. It was created in 1968 as the result of a merger between two banks – National Provincial Bank which had been established since 1833, and Westminster Bank which had been established since 1836. However both banks can trace their history through a lineage of prestigious constituents dating back to the 1650s. The Complainant was incorporated as a public limited company in the United Kingdom in 1982 and acquired by The Royal Bank of Scotland Group in 2000.
The Complainant is the owner of an international portfolio of registered trademarks for the mark NATWEST, as well as a number of domain names which include this mark and copies of lengthy lists of both trademarks and domain names were annexed to the Complaint.
The Respondent, an individual, failed to respond to the Complaint, nor to a cease-and-desist letter from the Complainant, so nothing is known about him other than his website at the disputed domain name.
Complainant operates websites at its domain names <natwest.com> and <natwest.co.uk>. However Complainant also annexed a list of the many domain names which it owns. Complainant also referred to five domain name disputes which it had won protecting this mark.
The Complainant contends that the dominant part of the disputed domain name is the word NATWEST and that this is identical to its trademark. Furthermore, the addition of the letters “bk” and “plc” to this name add nothing as it is generally recognised that there is confusing similarity when a well-known trademark is paired with different kinds of generic prefixes or suffixes. The overall impression of the disputed domain name is of the dominant name “natwest” which, the Complainant maintains, would be instantly recognizable as its world famous mark. The likelihood of confusion includes an obvious association with the Complainant’s trademark NATWEST and there is a considerable risk that the general public will believe that the disputed domain name either belongs to the Complainant, or that there is a commercial relationship between the Respondent and Complainant. Anyone seeing the disputed domain name is bound to mistake it for a name related to the Complainant.
Under the heading of “Rights or Legitimate Interests”, the Complainant contends that it has not found that the Respondent has any trademarks corresponding to the disputed domain name or anything to suggest that it has been using the word NATWEST in any way that could confer legitimate rights in the name. Furthermore, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The Complainant states that it attempted to contact Respondent by writing a cease-and-desist letter to ask for the cancellation of the disputed domain name. This was not replied to and, despite sending reminders, there was still no response of any kind from the Respondent.
The Complainant claims to have numerous registrations of the trademark NATWEST either alone or in combination with other matters. It supplied details of over 300 of these. The earliest of which is United Kingdom Registration No. 1,021,601 dated December 3, 1973 for goods in class 16.
It is by now well established that, when comparing a disputed domain name with a trademark, then a generic top-level domain (gTLD) such as, in this case, “.com”, may be disregarded. See, for example Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429, in which it was found that the gTLD of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar. Therefore, the comparison here is between the trademark NATWEST and the phrase “natwestbk-plc”.
The Complainant’s trademark NATWEST is extremely well-known throughout the world and, not surprisingly, it has attracted a number of attempts by cybersquatters to incorporate it into various domain names and Complainant referred to several cases, all of which were decided by WIPO or NAF panels in its favour.
In the present case, the Respondent has merely added the initials “bk” and “plc”’ to the trademark NATWEST. These additions do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Thereover, there is little doubt that the average consumer would assume that the term “natwestbk-plc” refers to Complainant and that the disputed domain name belongs to the Complainant.
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kuchora, Kal, WIPO Case No. D2006-0033, it was held that “it is well-established that the addition of a generic term to a trademark does not necessarily eliminate a likelihood of confusion.” It was also held in Merrell Pharmaceuticals Inc., Aventis Pharma SA v. Filips Kostins, WIPO Case No. D2004-0943 that “the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark ALLEGRA, as the prefixes ‘buy’ and ‘generic’ are generic terms, which do not influence significantly the overall impression of the Domain Name which is dominated by the term ALLEGRA.” This Panel has also decided a number of similar cases in favour of different complainants. See, for example, Wacoal Corp., Wacoal America Inc. v. Uri Shevchenko, WIPO Case No. D2010-1587 (wacoalbra.org); F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Contactprivacy.com/Mike Kazaros, WIPO Case No. D2010-2212 (<valiumvalues.com>); F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Hristo Ibouchev, WIPO Case No. D2010-2259 (<buyvalium247.com>, <valiumnopresc.com>, and <valium4anxiety.com>); Johnson & Johnson v. Ruan Rupke, WIPO Case No. D2011-1196 (<aveenocoupon.net>, <aveenocoupon.org>, <rogaine-coupon.com>, <zyrteccoupon.net>, and <zyrteccoupon.org>); Barclays Bank PLC v. Bar, WIPO Case No. D2011-1240 (<barclaysremiittancefpuonline.com>); E. Remy Martin & Co v. Giammario Villa, WIPO Case No. D2012-0735 (<remymartinvs.com> and <remymartinxo.com>).
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established a prima facie case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, namely that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and it is well established that once a complainant has made out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, then the burden shifts to the Respondent to prove otherwise. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, NAF Claim No. 741828 in which it was held that a complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The only information available about the Respondent is the WhoIs information provided by the Registrar. This contains no evidence of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name, which, as found above, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known name and trademark NATWEST. The website at the disputed domain name makes no mention of the Respondent but it does give every appearance of being a genuine website belonging to the Complainant. It is headed with the Complainant’s logo and name and, just as on the Complainant’s genuine website, there are pages for “Personal Banking”, “Private Banking”, “Business Banking”, and “Commercial Banking” as well as links to such matters as “Current accounts”, “Savings”, “Investments”, “Credit Cards” etc.
The Respondent makes no claims to have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and provides no explanation whatsoever for its registration and use of it.
The above circumstances merely serve to confirm the Complainant’s prima facie case, and the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, so that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is also proved in respect of it.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances which are evidence that a respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. In this case, the Panel believes that the Respondent is in contravention of at least one of the provisions under this paragraph of the Policy.
The registration of the disputed domain name does appear to have been made with an intentional attempt “to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to” Respondent’s website. In the view of the Panel, this falls squarely within paragraphs 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel also finds that the Respondent is attempting to disrupt the Complainant’s business.
Additionally, the Respondent was clearly aware of the Complainants’ name and trade mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. Not only is the name NATWEST known and recognised the world over, but the Respondent has actually used this name for himself and, furthermore, has claimed “135 Bishopsgate” as his address when it is actually the address of the Complainant.
In the Panel’s view, this is a very clear indication of opportunistic bad faith on the part of the respondent. See Nintendo of America Inc v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, WIPO Case No. D2001-1070, where the word “pokémon” was held to be a well-known mark of which the use by someone without any connection or legal relationship with the complainant suggested opportunistic bad faith. See also BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. Serena, Axel, WIPO Case No. D2006-0007, where it was held that the respondent acted in bad faith when registering the disputed domain name, because of the widespread and long-standing advertising and marketing of goods and services under the trademarks in question, because of the inclusion of the entire trademark in the disputed domain name, and because of the similarity of products implied by addition of telecommunications services suffix. All of which suggested a knowledge of the complainant’s rights in the trade marks.
In addition, the Complainant accuses the Respondent of phishing. This is the practice of sending an e-mail to a user falsely claiming to be and established legitimate enterprise, in an attempt to scam the unsuspecting user into surrendering private information such as user names, passwords, and credit card details. Although very little clear evidence of this actually happening was filed by the Complainant, it is an extremely plausible and likely explanation as to why the disputed domain name was registered.
The Panel concludes that the Respondent has acted in bad faith and that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been proved.
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 <natwestbk-plc.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

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