Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
The PNC
Financial Services Group, Inc., and PNC Bank, N.A. v. Domains For Sale Inc.
Claim Number: FA0201000104101
PARTIES
Complainant is The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., and PNC Bank, N.A., Pittsburgh, PA (“Complainant”) represented by Mark S. Sommers, of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. Respondent is Domains For Sale Inc., Bronx, NY (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND
DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <wwwpncbank.com>, registered with Tucows.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on January 23, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 24, 2002.
On January 25, 2002, Tucows confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <wwwpncbank.com> is registered with Tucows and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On January 28, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of February 18, 2002 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@wwwpncbank.com by e-mail.
Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 21, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent.” Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Respondent’s <wwwpncbank.com> domain
name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered PNCBANK trademark.
Respondent lacks right to and legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name.
Respondent registered and used the dispute domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
No Response was submitted.
FINDINGS
Complainant claims rights to the PNCBANK mark due to its registration of
the PNCBANK mark (Reg. No. 1,813,131) at the United States
Patent and Trademark
Office (USPTO) on December 21, 1993.
Complainant holds additional federal registrations of marks
incorporating the PNC and PNCBANK marks.
Moreover, Complainant claims to have developed goodwill in its PNCBANK
mark due to its use of the name since 1983, its full range
of banking and
financial services provided to the public, as well as its websites located at
<www.pncbank.com>, and <www.pnc.com>. As evidence of its extensive relationship with the public, it
currently holds 69.8 billion dollars in assets and has 47.7 billion
in
deposits.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 21, 2001, long
after Complainant began using its PNCBANK mark. Respondent uses the <wwwpncbank.com>
domain name to advertise for and
promote a graphic anti-abortion political group known as
Abortionismurder.org. On January 22,
2002 John Barry changed the listed registrant from himself to Domains for Sale
Inc. However, the website continues
to be used for the Abortionismurder.org
group.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph
15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of
the statements and documents submitted in
accordance with the Policy, these
Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Identical and/or
Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established rights in the PNCBANK trademark due to its
registration of the mark at the USPTO.
The disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates the
federally registered PNCBANK mark
in its entirety, while taking advantage of a
common typing error by adding “www”. The
addition of the top-level domain name “.com” is irrelevant in regard to determining confusing similarity. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000)
(finding that the top level 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); see also Prudential Ins.
Co. of Am. v. Irvine, FA 95768 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that
the domain name is identical to Complainant’s PRUDENTIAL ONLINE trademark
because the root of the domain name, the word "Prudential," is
identical to Complainant’s mark; thus, the domain name in
its entirety is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s family of marks); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092
(Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name
<wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar
to Complainant’s registered
trademark BANK OF AMERICA because it “takes advantage of a typing error
(eliminating the period between
the www and the domain name) that users
commonly make when searching on the Internet”).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Rights or
Legitimate Interests
Respondent does not
have rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) because its use
of a confusingly similar domain name that
takes advantage of Internet users trying to connect to Complainant’s <www.pncbank.com> website and
mistakenly omitting the period after “www”, serves to divert Internet traffic away from Complainant to
Respondent. See Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev,
D2000-1571 (WIPO Jan. 15, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where Respondent diverted Complainant’s customers to
his websites).
Respondent, known as
Domains For Sale Inc., is presumed not have rights or legitimate interests in
the disputed domain name pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) because it has provided
no evidence that it is commonly known by PNCBANK or <wwwpncbank.com>, and its anti-abortion website at the
disputed domain name does not appear to reflect the PNCBANK mark or <wwwpncbank.com> name.
See Gallup Inc. v.
Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that
Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known
by the mark); see also Hartford
Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc., FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29,
2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in domain
names because
it is not commonly known by Complainant’s marks and Respondent
has not used the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering
of goods
and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). Moreover, it is presumed that Respondent
would not be commonly known by Complainant’s PNCBANK mark due to the mark’s
fame. See Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, D2000-1397 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000)
(finding no rights or legitimate interests where one “would be hard pressed to
find a person who
may show a right or legitimate interest” in a domain name
containing Complainant's distinct and famous NIKE trademark).
Respondent does not
have rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because its
intention to divert Internet traffic from
Complainant’s websites to its own is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use
of the
disputed domain name. See Kosmea Pty Ltd. v. Krpan, D2000-0948
(WIPO Oct. 3, 2000) (finding no rights in the domain name where Respondent has
an intention to divert consumers of Complainant’s
products to Respondent’s site
by using Complainant’s mark).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Registration and
Use in Bad Faith
Respondent’s name on
the Whois registration is “Domains for Sale Inc.”, which implies that
Respondent registered the domain name primarily
for the purpose of selling it.
This indicates bad faith registration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Banca Popolare Friuladria S.p.A. v. Zago, D2000-0793 (WIPO Sept. 3,
2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent offered the domain names for
sale); see also American Anti-Vivisection Soc’y v. “Infa dot Net”
Web Serv., FA 95685 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that “general offers to sell the domain name, even
if no certain price is demanded,
are evidence of bad faith”).
Respondent’s attempt to “typosquat” by registering a domain name that is merely a misspelling of Complainant’s website and registered mark is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See AltaVista Co. v. Stoneybrook, D2000-0886 (WIPO Oct. 26, 2000) (awarding <wwwalavista.com>, among other misspellings of altavista.com, to Complainant); see also Dow Jones & Co. & Dow Jones, L.P. v. Powerclick, Inc., D2000-1259 (WIPO Dec. 1, 2000) (awarding domain names <wwwdowjones.com>, <wwwwsj.com>, <wwwbarrons.com> and <wwwbarronsmag.com> to Complainants).
Finally, given the notoriety and fame of Complainant’s mark, Respondent is presumed to have had constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the PNCBANK mark when it registered the disputed domain name. To posses constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights at the time of registration is to register the domain name in bad faith. See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief should be hereby granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wwwpncbank.com> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: February 25, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/297.html