Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Bank of America Corporation v. Peter
Klika
Claim Number: FA0306000161458
PARTIES
Complainant
is Bank of America Corporation,
Charlotte, NC (“Complainant”) represented by Larry C. Jones, of Alston & Bird, LLP. Respondent is Peter Klika, Mercer Island, WA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <bancaamerica.com>, <banqueamerique.com> and <transnationbank.com>, registered with Enom, Inc.
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.
The
Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on June 3, 2003; the Forum received
a hard copy of the Complaint
on June 5, 2003.
On
June 4, 2003, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names
<bancaamerica.com>, <banqueamerique.com> and <transnationbank.com> are registered with Enom, Inc. and that
the Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Enom, Inc. has verified
that Respondent
is bound by the Enom, Inc. 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
June 9, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of June 30,
2003 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@bancaamerica.com, postmaster@banqueamerique.com and
postmaster@transnationbank.com by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 25, 2003.
On June 30, 2003, pursuant to Complainant’s request to
have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable
Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
1. Respondent’s <bancaamerica.com>, <banqueamerique.com> and <transnationbank.com> domain names are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s BANKAMERICA, BANCAMERICA, BANK OF AMERICA and
NATIONSBANK marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the domain
names in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
contends that the <banqueamerique.com> domain name is not confusingly similar to
Complainant’s BANKAMERICA and BANCAMERICA marks. Respondent
maintains that the <transnationbank.com> domain name is not confusingly similar to
Complainant’s NATIONSBANK mark.
Respondent
is willing to transfer the <bancaamerica.com> domain name to
Complainant.
Respondent contends
that it registered the disputed domain names because of their generic nature
and future value to his law practice,
which specializes in banking.
FINDINGS
Complainant Bank of
America Corporation (hereinafter “Bank of America” or “Complainant”) is the
largest consumer bank in the United
States and one of the world’s best-known
financial institutions. For several
years, Complainant and its predecessors used the service marks and trade names
BANKAMERICA, BANCAMERICA, BANK OF AMERICA
and NATIONSBANK to identify their
banking and financial services.
BankAmerica
and NationsBank obtained several registrations of their BANKAMERICA,
BANCAMERICA, BANK OF AMERICA and NATIONSBANK marks
throughout the world,
including U.S. Service Mark Registration Nos. 965,288 issued July 31, 1973;
2,134,374 issued February 3, 1998;
853,860, issued July 30, 1968 and 1,976,832,
issued May 28, 1996. These
registrations are now owned by Complainant.
The
services of Complainant and its predecessors have been advertised and promoted
extensively under the BANKAMERICA, BANCAMERICA,
BANK OF AMERICA and NATIONSBANK
marks worldwide in various forms of media.
Complainant also owns the domain names <bankamerica.com>,
<bancamerica.com>, <bankofamerica.com> and <nationsbank.com>.
Respondent registered
the <transnationbank.com> domain name on August 17, 2000, the <bancaamerica.com> domain name on May
15, 2002 and the <banqueamerique.com> domain name on May 28, 2002.
Complainant contends
that Respondent is using the <bancaamerica.com>, <banqueamerique.com> and <transnationbank.com> domain
names to direct individuals seeking
Complainant’s website to search engine websites that include links to providers
of a variety of goods
and services, including financial services. These websites are not in any way sponsored,
approved, promoted by or associated with Bank of America.
Respondent,
Peter Klika, is an attorney who represents both domestic and foreign banks and
financial institutions. He claims a
legitimate interest in registering the disputed names. He claims to have acted in good faith. He says that he never offered to sell the
disputed names, that he never created or authorized the creation of any
websites for the
disputed names, and that he never intended to divert internet
users to another site. Respondent contends that the “commercial”
website posted for the disputed domain names is actually a placeholder page
hosted by the
domain name registrar.
Respondent
has been an attorney since 1982. He is
licensed to practice in California, Washington, and other jurisdictions. Prior to becoming an attorney he was a
language and consular officer with the U.S. State Department. His law practice emphasizes banking, real
estate and bankruptcy law. In
anticipation of some of his clients forming subsidiaries or affiliates, he has
registered a number of bank domain names in various
languages. At no time has he offered to sell any of the
disputed names to Bank of America, any other bank, or any other person.
Respondent
registered <bancaamerica.com> because it is Italian for America
Bank. At the time he registered it, he
was unaware of the trademark BANCAMERICA.
Respondent is willing to transfer the <bancaamerica.com> domain
name to Complainant.
Banque
Amerique is French for America Bank.
Respondent argues that while <banqueamerique.com> may be
similar to Complainant’s marks, it is not “confusingly similar.” Furthermore, “BanqueAmerique” has at least
six letters (“que” in both names) not found in Complainant’s marks.
Respondent
argues that <transnationbank.com> is not confusingly similar to
NATIONSBANK.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”
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;
(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.
Complainant has rights in the BANKAMERICA,
BANCAMERICA and NATIONSBANKS mark through registration of these marks in the
United States,
as well as through widespread use of the marks in commerce.
Complainant urges that Respondent’s <bancaamerica.com> and <banqueamerique.com> domain names
are confusingly similar to its BANKAMERICA and BANCAMERICA marks. See America
Online, Inc. v. Avrasya Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., FA 93679 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16,
2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name, <americanonline.com>, is
confusingly similar
to the Complainant’s famous AMERICA ONLINE mark); see
also Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini,
FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words
and adding letters to words, a Respondent does not
create a distinct mark but
nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s
marks). The Panel finds that the <bancaamerica.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BANCAMERICA mark.
However,
the <banqueamerique.com> domain name is not confusingly similar to
Complainant’s BANKAMERICA and BANCAMERICA marks. See Entrepreneur
Media, Inc. v. Smith, [2002] USCA9 115; 279 F.3d 1135, 1147 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002)
("Similarity of marks or lack thereof are context-specific concepts. In
the Internet context, consumers
are aware that domain names for different
websites are quite often similar, because of the need for language economy, and
that very
small differences matter"); see also Energy Source Inc. v. Your Energy Source, FA 96364 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Feb. 19, 2001) (finding that Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in
the domain name where “Respondent
has persuasively shown that the domain name
is comprised of generic and/or descriptive terms, and, in any event, is not
exclusively
associated with Complainant’s business”).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <transnationbank.com> domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s NATIONSBANK mark. See Arthur
Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v.
Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026
(WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in
dispute contains the identical mark of the
Complainant combined with a generic
word or term). However, the Panel finds
that the <transnationbank.com>
domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s NATIONSBANK mark. See
Bank
of Am. Corp. v. Fluxxx, Inc., FA 103809 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2002)
(finding that Complainant failed to prove “confusing similarity” under Policy ¶
4(a)(i)
because it did not demonstrate that the public would be confused
between its NATIONSBANK mark and the disputed domain name
<nationsbanking.com>);
see also Successful Money Mgmt.
Seminars, Inc. v. Direct Mail Express,
FA 96457 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 7, 2001) (finding that seminar and success are
generic terms to which Complainant cannot maintain
exclusive rights).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has not been
satisfied as to the domain names <banqueamerique.com> and <transnationbank.com>. Because satisfaction of each element listed
under paragraph 4(a) is mandatory, it is not necessary to pursue analysis under
Policy
¶¶ 4(a)(ii) or (iii) as to these two domain names. See Creative Curb v. Edgetec International
Pty. Ltd., FA 116765 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 20, 2002) (finding that because
Complainant must prove all three elements under the Policy, Complainant’s
failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into the remaining
element unnecessary). However, Policy ¶
4(a)(i) has been satisfied as to the domain name <bancaamerica.com>.
Respondent
specifically expresses the intent to transfer the <bancaamerica.com>
domain name to Complainant.
Respondent’s willingness to transfer the disputed domain name to
Complainant demonstrates that Respondent lacks any rights to or legitimate
interests in the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Land O’ Lakes Inc. v. Offbeat Media Inc.,
FA 96451 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s willingness
to transfer upon notification of the Complaint
is evidence of its lack of
legitimate interests or rights); see also Global Media Group, Ltd. v. Kruzicevic, FA 96558 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Mar. 7, 2001) (finding that the Respondent’s willingness at the onset of the
Complaint to transfer the
domain names shows it lacks any legitimate interest
or rights in the names).
The
Panel finds that Respondent’s offer to transfer the domain names in addition to
Complainant’s submissions of evidence establish
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) as to the domain name <bancaamerica.com>.
Respondent’s
offer to transfer the <bancaamerica.com> domain name to
Complainant is evidence that Respondent registered and used the domain name in
bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
See Marcor Int’l v. Langevin, FA 96317 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 12, 2001)
(Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name at issue coupled with its
expressed
willingness to transfer the name amply satisfies the bad faith
requirements set forth in ICANN Policy); see also Global Media Group, Ltd. v. Kruzicevic, FA 96558 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Mar. 7, 2001) (finding Respondent’s failure to address Complainant’s
allegations coupled with its willingness
to transfer the names is evidence of
bad faith registration and use).
The
Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) as to the domain name <bancaamerica.com>.
DECISION
The
Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED as to the domain name <bancaamerica.com>
and DENIED as to the domain names <banqueamerique.com> and <transnationbank.com>.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bancaamerica.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant and that the
<banqueamerique.com> and <transnationbank.com> registrations REMAIN with Respondent.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr.
(Ret.), Panelist
Dated: July 8, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/699.html