Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

Western Union Holdings, Inc. v. XYZ a/k/a Chahat Topiwala [2005] GENDND 1774 (20 October 2005)

World Intellectual Property Organization

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Western Union Holdings, Inc. v. XYZ a/k/a Chahat Topiwala

Case No. D2005-0945

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Western Union Holdings, Inc., Greenwood Village, Colorado, United States of America, represented by Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, LLP, United States of America.

The Respondent is XYZ a/k/a Chahat Topiwala, Mumbai, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The domain name at issue <wuib.com> is registered with Melbourne IT trading as Internet Names Worldwide.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 2, 2005. On September 5, 2005, the Center transmitted by email to Melbourne IT trading as Internet Names Worldwide a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On September 9, 2005, Melbourne IT trading as Internet Names Worldwide 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 administrative, billing, and technical contact. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 9, 2005. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 29, 2005. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 30, 2005.

The Center appointed Ian Blackshaw as the Sole Panelist in this matter on October 6, 2005. 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is part of the Western Union Financial Services Group of Companies. Western Union International Bank GmbH is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the Republic of Austria and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Union Financial Services, Inc., a Colorado corporation. Western Union Financial Services, Inc. is the parent corporation of both Western Union International Bank GmbH and Western Union Holdings, Inc., the Complainant in this case.

The Complainant is the owner of all global rights in and to the world famous WESTERN UNION mark and trade name and all WESTERN UNION formative marks and initialism marks. Complainant licenses WESTERN UNION formative marks and initialism marks to other Western Union corporate entities and affiliates, and other licensees.

The Complainant is the owner of all rights in and to the WUIB mark, which is used and registered in association with banking and financial services, debit and credit cards; software; and business and advertising services. The Complainant filed an application for registration of the WUIB mark with the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market on July 18, 2003. The application matured into Community Trademark Registration No. 003276136, issued by the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market on March 17, 2005. A copy of the corresponding registration certificate has been provided to the Panel.

The Complainant’s WUIB mark is an initialism of WESTERN UNION INTERNATIONAL BANK, which is also used and registered by the Complainant in association with banking and financial services, debit and credit cards and software; business and advertising services. The Panel has also been provided with a detailed list of worldwide trademark registrations incorporating the name “WESTERN UNION”.

The Complainant’s parent company, Western Union Financial Services, Inc., filed a petition for a banking license with the government of Austria in the name Western Union International Bank GmbH on November 5, 2003. The Government of Austria issued a banking license to Western Union International Bank GmbH on October 13, 2004. A copy of this license and an English translation thereof have been provided to the Panel. The Panel has also been provided with a copy of the subsequent press release announcing the issuance of this license.

Western Union International Bank GmbH officially opened for business on January 7, 2005, and recorded its first transaction through the use of the WUIB mark on February 1, 2005. Examples of Complainant’s WUIB advertising materials have been provided to the Panel. For publicity purposes, the official opening, in the presence of the media, occurred on June 29, 2005. A copy of the press release announcing the “media opening” has also been provided to the Panel.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant makes the following contentions:

i. The Domain Name is Identical to Complainant’s Mark

The Complainant and/or its affiliated companies’ preparatory and promotional activities, starting at least as early as July 18, 2003—the filing date of the WUIB application, demonstrate that the Complainant established common law rights in and to the WUIB mark well over a year and half prior to the Respondent’s registration of the domain name at issue. It is well established that under the Policy a domain name may be ordered to be transferred based upon common law rights. The Complainant is not required to have registered the mark(s) at issue. See, for example, Fujitsu Limited v. d, y, an, 64 USPQ2d 1853, NAF (123924, October 25, 2002); Mission KwaSizabantu v. Benjamin Rost, WIPO Case No. D2000-0279 (June 7, 2000); CSA International (a.k.a. Canadian Standards Association) v. John O. Shannon and Care Tech Industries, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0071 (March, 24, 2000); MatchNet PLC v. MAC Trading, WIPO Case No. D2000-0205 (May 11, 2000).

All that the Policy requires is “the fact that a certain combination of letters and/or numbers is recognizable as a trademark or service mark by a significant number of Internet users or consumers in general”. ISL Marketing AG v. The European Unique Resources Assoc. 2000 B.V., WIPO Case No. D2000-0230 (July 5, 2000); Askonas Holt Ltd. v. Webocracy, WIPO Case No. D2000-0392 (July 3, 2000) (the Policy does not require that the trademark be registered in order to establish prior rights); see also, for example, Marvel Comics Ltd. v. Defiant, 837 F. Supp. 546, 548 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (finding that the plaintiff had established common law trademark rights by undertaking promotional activities for the mark and impending product, and by demonstrating intent to adopt the mark by filing applications for registration).

Furthermore, it is also well established that the top-level domain “.com” is part of the Internet address and does not add source-identifying significance. Visit America, Inc. v. Visit America, NAF (95093, August 14, 2000); Deutsche Welle v. DiamondWare Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2000-1202 (January 2, 2001) (stating “[f]or the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the ‘.com’ element may be ignored”); see also, e.g., Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp., 204 F.R.D. 460, 466-67 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (“[A]ny permutations one may derive from adding a top-level domain ... to the second-level domain “nissan” are indistinguishable as a matter of law”). Accordingly, the <wuib.com> domain name at issue herein is identical to the Complainant’s WUIB mark and infringes upon the Complainant’s well established prior rights in and to the WUIB mark. See, e.g., Imperial College v. Christophe Dessimoz, WIPO Case No. D2004-0322 (June 30, 2004) (ordering the transfer of domain names based upon the complainant’s common law rights).

ii Respondent has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name

There is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name at issue in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, the Respondent has used the domain name to display a website that masquerades as that of the Complainant and/or its affiliated company. Screen captures from the “Home” page and the “About Us” page of the website displayed by the Respondent at <wuib.com> have been provided to the Panel. In a blatant attempt to trade upon the goodwill associated with the Complainant and its marks, the web pages prominently display the Complainant’s WUIB and WESTERN UNION INTERNATIONAL BANK marks and a graphic showing the North American continent on a globe. They also include voluminous text that has been copied from the website of a third party, which appears to be a legitimate banking institution in Nigeria, namely “FBN (Merchant Bankers) LIMITED”. Screen captures from the “Home” page and “About Us” page of their website “www.fbnmb.com” copied by the Respondent have also been provided to the Panel.

A comparison of the screen captures shows that the Respondent has copied the website of “FBN (Merchant Bankers) Limited” and merely inserted the Complainant’s WUIB and WESTERN UNION INTERNATIONAL BANK marks in the place of the name “FBN (Merchant Bankers) Limited”. The Respondent has combined the content of an apparently legitimate Nigerian Bank’s website with the Complainant’s WUIB and WESTERN UNION INTERNATIONAL BANK marks in an apparent attempt to lure Internet users into believing that the Respondent’s “www.wuib.com” website is that of a legitimate Nigerian bank. Furthermore, the Respondent is using the Complainant’s WUIB and WESTERN UNION INTERNATIONAL BANK marks in furtherance of its efforts to solicit monetary deposits to the sham banking institution. The Panel has been referred to the “Open an Account” information shown on the right-hand side of the screen capture from the Respondent’s “www.wuib.com” website.

There is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent currently is, or ever was, legitimately known by WUIB. The Respondent’s use of both WUIB and WESTERN UNION INTERNATIONAL BANK on the website displayed at “www.wuib.com” demonstrates that the Respondent understands that the WUIB mark is an initialism for WESTERN UNION INTERNATIONAL BANK. See The Chip Merchant, Inc. v. Blue Star Electronics, d/b/a/ Memory World, WIPO Case No. D2000-0474 (August 21, 2000) (no evidence that respondent has used this term to identify himself or to describe the services offered through his website).

The Respondent is not making a “legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the [WUIB.com] domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue”. Policy, paragraph 4(c)(iii). In stark contrast, the Respondent is using the Complainant’s WUIB mark as a domain name for the sole purpose of diverting Internet users to the website of a sham banking institution. The Complainant may only assume that the purpose of the website displayed by Respondent at “www.wuib.com” is to facilitate the fraudulent collection of monies from unsuspecting Internet users. The Respondent’s use of WUIB as a domain name, and use of WUIB together with WESTERN UNION INTERNATIONAL BANK throughout the website displayed at “www.wuib.com”, is intended by the Respondent to trade upon and evoke the goodwill associated with the Complainant for the apparent purpose of fraudulently obtaining money from Internet users. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent clearly has no rights or legitimate interests in the <wuib.com> domain name. See CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen, WIPO Case No. D2000-0400 (July 6, 2000) (finding no legitimate reason for the respondent to use a domain name corresponding to the well known mark of another and concluding that the respondent did not have legitimate rights in or make legitimate use of the domain name); Netcentives, Inc. v. B W Brody Co., WIPO Case No. D2000-0672 (September 29, 2000) (finding that the complainant made the requisite showing under paragraph 4(a)(ii) where complainant argued that the domain name at issue had no value to the respondent apart from the goodwill and reputation associated with complainant’s mark).

iii. The Domain Name Was Registered and is Being Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant and/or its affiliated companies commenced efforts to commercialize and promote services through the WUIB mark at least as early as July 18, 2003. After a year and a half of preparatory and commercialization efforts, the Complainant’s affiliated company officially opened for business on January 7, 2005, and recorded its first transaction through the use of the WUIB mark on February 1, 2005. The Respondent registered the <wuib.com> domain name a mere three weeks after the Complainant’s affiliate’s launch of services under the WUIB and WESTERN UNION INTERNATIONAL BANK marks. The Respondent’s prominent use of the WUIB and WESTERN UNION INTERNATIONAL BANK marks throughout the website displayed at “www.wuib.com” demonstrates that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s prior rights in and to the WUIB mark and the associated WESTERN UNION INTERNATIONAL BANK mark when registering the <wuib.com> domain name. It can be inferred from the Respondent’s actions that the Respondent registered the <wuib.com> domain name for the purpose of evoking an association with the Complainant’s WUIB mark and with the Complainant itself and its affiliated Western Union companies. See SembCorp Indus. Ltd. v. Hu Huan Xin, WIPO Case No. D2001-1092 (November 26, 2001) (finding that the “surrounding circumstances would lead one to infer that the respondent ‘knew’ or ‘ought to have known’ of the existence/of trademark rights of the complainant”). All the evidence suggests that the Respondent’s registration of <wuib.com> is unquestionably calculated rather than accidental.

The Respondent listed his/her/its name as “xyz” and listed his/her/its address as “skjdhfkjshfsdkfjhsdkjfhsdfkljsdhflksdjhfskdjfh” in the <wuib.com> domain name registration. Providing such false registration information is further evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith registration of the <wuib.com> domain name. See Morrison & Foerster, LLP v. Wick, NAF (94301, April 17, 2000) (finding bad faith where the “[r]espondents intentionally ... failed to maintain accurate contact information, or have provided material and misleading false contact information); see also, e.g., Grupo Televisa, S.A., de C.V. et al. v. Autosya, S.A., de C.V. et al., WIPO Case No. DTV2001-0007 (June, 11, 2001) (transferring domain name where supplying incorrect contact information was considered evidence of bad faith); CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Edward Enterprises, WIPO Case No. D2000-0242 (May 24, 2000); Lion Country Supply, Inc. v. J. Katz, WIPO Case No. D2003-0106(April 8, 2003) (finding failure to maintain accurate contact information “another indication of the [r]espondent’s bad faith”).

The Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant and its affiliates and the Complainant’s WUIB mark, the Respondent’s use of false information in the registration for the <wuib.com> domain name, and the Respondent’s subsequent use of <wuib.com> in furtherance of a fraud scheme, all clearly demonstrate the Respondent’s bad faith registration of the <wuib.com> domain name.

In addition to the Complainant’s prior rights in and to the WUIB and WESTERN UNION INTERNATIONAL BANK marks discussed above, the Complainant is the owner of all global rights in and to the world famous WESTERN UNION mark and trade name and all WESTERN UNION formative marks. A chart of representative global WESTERN UNION registrations has been provided to the Panel as previously mentioned. The WESTERN UNION marks, which have been in use in some instances since 1851, are famous throughout the world in connection with numerous and varied communication and financial services. Through the Complainant and its predecessors’ long-standing use and promotion of the WESTERN UNION marks in international commerce, the marks have acquired great value and goodwill.

As discussed above, the Respondent has copied significant portions of the content of a legitimate Nigerian bank’s website, replaced the name of the bank with the Complainant’s WUIB and WESTERN UNION INTERNATIONAL BANK marks, and has associated the copied/altered website with the <wuib.com> domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s WUIB mark in its entirety. Such bad faith use of the <wuib.com> domain name is likely, and indeed appears intended, to cause consumer confusion. “When a domain name incorporates, in its entirety, a distinctive mark, that creates sufficient similarity between the mark and the domain name to render it confusingly similar.” Diageo plc v. Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2000-0996 (October 22, 2000).

The Respondent likely selected the Complainant’s WUIB and WESTERN UNION INTERNATIONAL BANK marks for its scheme due to the fame and global reputation of the Complainant and its affiliated companies for, among other things, financial services. The fraudulent services advertised by the Respondent through use of <wuib.com> are the type of services that consumers will assume are offered by the Complainant and its affiliated companies through use of the Complainant’s WUIB, WESTERN UNION INTERNATIONAL BANK, and other WESTERN UNION formative marks. The Respondent’s fraudulent Nigerian banking services advertised on “www.wuib.com”, which have been copied from a Nigerian bank’s website, are indeed similar to the legitimate banking services that the Complainant and its affiliated companies offer through use of the Complainant’s WUIB and WESTERN UNION INTERNATIONAL BANK marks.

The Complainant also notes that the Respondent is using the western_union_bank@[email address].com email account to receive correspondence, which incorporates the Complainant’s WESTERN UNION mark. As intended by the Respondent, the consuming public, and Internet users in particular, are thus likely to associate the Respondent’s fraudulent services with the Complainant. See, for example, Brookfield Communs., Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., [1999] USCA9 225; 174 F.3d 1036, 1056 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing American Int’l Group v. American Int’l Bank, [1991] USCA9 140; 926 F.2d 829, 832 (9th Cir. 1991) (because both parties provided financial services, customer confusion could result from the similarity between their services).

The Respondent’s use of the <wuib.com> domain name, together with the Complainant’s WUIB and WESTERN UNION INTERNATIONAL BANK marks and a copied/altered website of a legitimate bank, demonstrates that the Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for fraudulent commercial gain, Internet users to the “www.wuib.com” website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s WUIB mark and the source of all services offered through the use of the mark. See The Chip Merchant, Inc. v. Blue Star Electronics, d/b/a/ Memory World, WIPO Case No. D2000-0474 (August 21, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name to disrupt the Complainant’s business and intentionally attempted to attract users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website); Microsoft Corp. v. Webbangladesh.com, WIPO Case No. D2002-0769 (October 4, 2002) (finding that use of the domain name as part of a fraudulent scheme is evidence of bad faith).

The Respondent has unmistakably registered and used the <wuib.com> domain name in bad faith under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. The Complainant has been and will continue to be injured by the likely consumer confusion, and tarnishment of the Complainant’s marks, created by the Respondent’s registration and use of the <wuib.com> domain name in association with such fraudulent and nefarious activities. See, for example, New York State Soc’y of C.P.A.’s v. Eric Louis Assocs., Inc., 79 F. Supp.2d 331, 346 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (“Tarnishment generally arises when the plaintiff’s trademark is linked to products of shoddy quality, or is portrayed in an unwholesome or unsavory context.”).

B. Respondent

The Respondent, having been duly notified of the Complaint and these proceedings, did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions or take any other part in these proceedings.

6. Discussion and Findings

To qualify for cancellation or transfer of the domain name at issue, the Complainant must prove each of the following elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely:

(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In accordance with paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

In accordance with paragraph 14(a) of the Rules, in the event that a Party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any of the time periods established by the Rules or the Panel, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the Complaint; and (b) if a Party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate.

In accordance with paragraph 10(d) of the Rules, the Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence.

In previous UDRP cases in which the respondent failed to file a Response, the Panel’s decisions were based upon the complainant’s assertions and evidence, as well as inferences drawn from the respondent’s failure to reply. See The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang, WIPO Case No. D2002-1064; and also Köstritzer Schwarzbierbrauerei v. Macros-Telekom Corp, WIPO Case No. D2001-0936.

Nevertheless, the Panel must not decide in the Complainant’s favor solely based on the Respondent’s default (Cortefiel S.A. v. Miguel García Quintas, WIPO Case No. D2000-0140). The Panel must decide whether the Complainant has introduced elements of proof, which allow the Panel to conclude that its allegations are true.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Previous panels have consistently held that where a domain name incorporates a complainant’s registered mark, this is sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy. See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr., WIPO Case No. D2000-1525.

The domain name at issue incorporates the trademark WUIB, which is owned and has been commercially used and promoted by the Complainant in and for the purposes of its business and the sale of its services as a trademark for many years.

The Panel agrees with the Complainant’s contention that the addition of the suffix “.com” is immaterial and irrelevant for these purposes, adding no distinctiveness or source of origin elements whatsoever to the domain name at issue.

In view of this, the Panel finds that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark WUIB, in which the Complainant has clearly demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Panel that it has well-established and commercially valuable rights at Common Law and latterly also through registration.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In order to determine whether the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name (paragraphs 3(b)(ix)(2) of the Rules and 4(c) of the Policy), attention must be paid to any of the following circumstances in particular but without limitation:

- Whether before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, there is any evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;

- Whether the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights;

- Whether the Respondent is making a legitimate non commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

There is no evidence to show that the Respondent was acting in pursuance of any rights or legitimate interests when registering the domain name at issue.

In particular, the Panel finds no evidence that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use the domain name at issue in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, the Respondent has used the domain name at issue for a website that purports to be that of the Complainant and also incorporates material from the website of a third unrelated party.

Likewise no evidence has been adduced that the Respondent has commonly been known by the domain name; nor is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain names; nor has the Respondent been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s trademark WUIB as part of the domain name at issue.

Furthermore, the adoption by the Respondent of a domain name identical to the Complainant’s trademark inevitably leads to the diversion of the Complainant’s consumers to the Respondent’s website (see further on this point below) and the consequential tarnishing of the Complainant’s trademark. In other words, the Respondent is trading for commercial gain on the good name and worldwide reputation of the Complainant’s business and trademark and unfairly attracting to its own business and activities the substantial goodwill that the Complainant has established in its name and marks, evidence of which has been provided to the Panel, without any right or legal justification for doing so.

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has neither rights to nor legitimate interests in the domain name at issue.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Regarding the bad faith requirement, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists four examples of acts, which prima facie constitute evidence of bad faith. However, this list is not exhaustive, but merely illustrative. See Nova Banka v. Iris, WIPO Case No. D2003-0366 (June 30, 2003).

Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy is particularly relevant to the present case and provides that there is evidence of bad faith in the following circumstances:

“(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.”

Based on the evidence provided in the case file, the Panel agrees with the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent by registering the domain name at issue is trading on the Complainant’s valuable goodwill established in its trademark WUIB over many years. Indeed, the timing of the Respondent’s registration of the domain name at issue, as mentioned above, indicates that the Respondent’s actions were not accidental, but deliberate and calculated to exploit the Complainant’s renown in the banking services field.

Again, by registering and using the domain name at issue incorporating the Complainant’s trademark, WUIB, the Respondent is misleading Internet users and consumers into thinking that it is, in some way or another, connected, sponsored or affiliated with the Complainant and its business, or the Respondent’s activities are approved or endorsed by the Complainant, none of which, in fact, is the case.

The Respondent appears to be trading on the Complainant’s goodwill and reputation, which the Complainant has built up over many years. This, without any explanations by the Respondent to the contrary, of which none have been forthcoming, constitutes bad faith.

Furthermore, the design and content of the Respondent’s website described above, and, in particular, the incorporation of material from the website of a Nigerian Bank, with which there is no evidence to show any affiliation or association of the Respondent, constitute a usurpation of the Complainant’s valuable intellectual property and other rights in its name, business and services The Respondent’s website being calculated to mislead Internet users and consumers into thinking that the Respondent has some legal relationship with the Complainant and its business or that the Complainant has approved the use of the domain name at issue, neither of which, in fact, is the case. This, together with the unauthorized use by the Respondent of the email address western_union_bank@[email address].com, incorporating the Complainant’s well-established, widely registered and valuable WESTERN UNION mark and thereby creating confusion and the likelihood in the minds of consumers and Internet users of an association or affiliation between the Respondent and its fraudulent services with the legitimate business activities and services of the Complainant, which again is not, in fact, the case, in the view of the Panel, constitutes further evidence of bad faith on the part of the Respondent.

Also, the Panel agrees with the Complainant’s contention and for the reasons cited that the use by the Respondent of a fantasy or fictitious name and address is additional evidence of bad faith.

Finally, the failure by the Respondent to file any answer to the Complainant’s Complaint or otherwise participate in the present proceedings, in the view of the Panel, also suggests bad faith on the part of the Respondent.

Therefore, for all the above reasons, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the domain name at issue in bad faith.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <wuib.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Ian Blackshaw
Sole Panelist

Dated: October 20, 2005