Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Bank of America Corporation, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Micah Abrams, Mesa, AZ, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is wwwbofa.com registered with CORE.

The Panelist certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as the panelist in this proceeding.

Louis E. Condon, as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on August 23, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 23, 2000.

On August 31, 2000, CORE confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name wwwbofa.com is registered with CORE and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. CORE has verified that Respondent is bound by the CORE registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On September 6, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 26, 2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to R espondent 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@wwwbofa.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 October 2, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed Louis E. Condon 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 Uniform Rules "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notic e 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, withou t the benefit of any Response from the Respondent.

The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that (i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the accused domain name, and ( iii) the accused domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

The Complainant is one of the country’s well-known financial institutions. For several decades, the Complainant and its predecessors have exclusively used the service marks "Bank of America" and "B of A" in connection with their banking and financi al services.

On April 16, 1968, the Complainant obtained a U.S. Federal Service Mark registration for the mark "B OF A" (No. 847,761). The Complainant uses this mark to advertise and market its services. The Complainant owns the domain name <bofa.com>.

Individuals who mistakenly enter "wwwbofa.com" in their computer are directed to a website bearing the title "whitetrash.net." This website includes advertisements and sales of products, such as "whitetrash" t-shirts.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") requires that the complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be canceled 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.

Because the Respondent has defaulted in providing a response to the allegations of Complainant, the Panel is directed to decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the complaint. Rules ¶ 14.a. Certain factual conclusions may be drawn by the Panel on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed representations. Rules ¶ 15.a.

The Complainant owns a valid and enforceable service mark. The Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to that service mark. See Bank of American Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s d omain 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").

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no affiliation with the Complainant or its services and therefore has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The Panel concludes that the Respondent is not commonly known by the term " bofa", has not used the name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and is not making a legitimate noncommercial use of the domain name. Policy ¶ 4.c.(i) – (iii). Rather, the Respondent is using the Complai nant’s mark to transport Internet users to a website other than that which Internet users are seeking. Hence, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith by profiting from a common typographical error.

The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered the domain name in order to attract Internet users, for commercial gain, to another website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. Policy ¶ 4.b.(iv ). Further, linking users to advertising in order to profit from another’s mark, is evidence of bad faith. See Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent linked the domain name in question to websites displaying banner advertisements and pornographic material); Bama Rags, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 94380 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent attracted users to advertisements). Based on this, the Panel determi nes that the Respondent violated Policy ¶ 4.a.(iii) by registering and using the accused domain names in bad faith.

Having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4(a), it is the decision of the panel that the requested relief be granted.

Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain name, "wwwbofa.com" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.