DECISION

Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank v. Henry Chan

Claim Number:  FA0403000244125

PARTIES

Complainant is Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank (“Complainant”) represented by Diane Duhaime, of Jorden Burt, LLP, 175 Powder Forest Drive, Suite 201, Simsbury, CT 06089-9658.  Respondent is Henry Chan (“Respondent”) P.O. Box SS-6348/A124, Nassau, Bahamas.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <websterbankonline.com>, registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com.

PANEL

The undersigned 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 Panelist in this proceeding.

Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on March 8, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 9, 2004.

On March 9, 2004, Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <websterbankonline.com> is registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com 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 March 11, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 31, 2004 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@websterbankonline.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 April 12, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., 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 Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

1. Respondent’s <websterbankonline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s <WEBSTER BANK> mark.

2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <websterbankonline.com> domain name.

3. Respondent registered and used the <websterbankonline.com> domain name in bad faith.

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

Complainant, Webster Bank, is a federally chartered savings bank and wholly-owned subsidiary of Webster Financial Corporation (collectively, “Complainant.”). Complainant and Webster Financial Corporation offer a wide range of banking and financial services under the mark WEBSTER BANK and other marks incorporating the term WEBSTER.                                                         Complainant and its holding company operate over 100 branches, 200 ATMS, a call center and Internet sites.

Complainant owns nine trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office that incorporate the terms WEBSTER BANK or WEBSTER, including a trademark for WEBSTER BANK (Reg. No. 1,997,751, issued August, 27 1996). Complainant has been using the WEBSTER BANK mark since November 1995.

Complainant’s website can be accessed via both <websteronline.com> and <websterbank.com>, where customers can conduct their business online with Complainant.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 13, 2002. Respondent is using the domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s site, a search engine that offers financial and banking directory services.

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 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 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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2) 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 that it has rights in the WEBSTER BANK mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and through the use of its mark in commerce for the last nine years.  See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.”); see also Keppel TatLee Bank v. Taylor, D2001-0168 (WIPO Mar. 28, 2001) (“[O]n account of long and substantial use of the said name [<keppelbank.com>] in connection with its banking business, it has acquired rights under the common law.”).

Respondent’s <websterbankonline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WEBSTER BANK mark because the domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety, and only deviates by omitting the space between the words “Webster” and “Bank” and adding the descriptive term “online.” The mere addition of a descriptive term to Complainant’s mark does not negate the confusing similarity of the domain name with regard to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001) (“the fact that a domain name incorporates a Complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish identical or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks.”); see also Pfizer, Inc. v. Papol Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the subject domain name incorporates the VIAGRA mark in its entirety, and deviates only by the addition of the word “bomb,” the domain name is rendered confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark); see also Westfield Corp., Inc. v. Hobbs, D2000-0227 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (finding the <westfieldshopping.com> domain name confusingly similar because the WESTFIELD mark was the dominant element); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Domain Depot, FA 96854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2001) (finding the <broadcomonline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BROADCOM mark).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, it is assumed that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests once Complainant establishes a prima facie case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that under certain circumstances the mere assertion by Complainant that Respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to Respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist); see also Woolworths plc. v. Anderson, D2000-1113 (WIPO Oct. 10, 2000) (finding that absent evidence of preparation to use the domain name for a legitimate purpose, the burden of proof lies with Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests).

Moreover, the Panel can accept all reasonable allegations and inferences in the Complaint as true because Respondent has not submitted a Response. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”); see also Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the Complaint to be deemed true).

Respondent is using the domain name to divert Internet traffic intended for Complainant by unfairly benefiting from Complainant’s goodwill. Respondent’s use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, to redirect Internet users interested in Complainant’s services, to a search engine that offers financial and banking directory search services, as well as pop-up ads and banners, is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Geoffrey, Inc. v. Toyrus.com, FA 150406 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, a simple misspelling of Complainant’s mark, to divert Internet users to a website that featured pop-up advertisements and an Internet directory, was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Out Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (finding that Respondent’s use of infringing domain names to direct Internet traffic to a search engine website that hosted pop-up advertisements was evidence that it lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that Respondent’s diversionary use of Complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to competitors of Complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).

Moreover, Respondent has offered no evidence and there is no proof in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the WEBSTER BANK domain name. Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question); see also 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).

The Panel finds that 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered the domain name for its own commercial gain. Respondent’s domain name diverts Internet users who wish to search under Complainant’s mark to its own website, through the use of a confusingly similar domain name. Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain, through the use of a confusingly similar domain name, evidences bad faith registration and use of a domain name pursuant to the Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see also Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with Complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain); see also Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if Respondent profits from its diversionary use of Complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and Respondent fails to contest the Complaint, it may be concluded that Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).

Furthermore, while, the four circumstances listed under Policy 4P (b), if proven, evidence bad faith use and registration of a disputed domain name, additional factors can also evidence bad faith registration and use. See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (finding that in determining if a domain name has been registered in bad faith, the Panel must look at the “totality of circumstances”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“the examples [of bad faith] in Paragraph 4(b) are intended to be illustrative, rather than exclusive”).

Sufficient evidence exists in the record to suggest that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith because Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark. Respondent’s registration of a confusingly similar domain name, a domain name which incorporates Complainant’s registered mark in its entirety and deviates only with the addition of a descriptive word, suggests that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark. Furthermore, Respondent likely knew of Complainant’s registered mark and reputation because the directory service Respondent provided at the domain name offered links to financial and banking services, services similar to those offered by Complainant. Thus, Respondent likely chose the <websterbankonline.com> domain name based on its distinctive qualities. See Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (holding that “there is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or constructively”); see also Victoria’s Cyber Secret Ltd. P’ship v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 161 F.Supp.2d 1339, 1349 (S.D.Fla. 2001) (noting that “a Principal Register registration [of a trademark or service mark] is constructive notice of a claim of ownership so as to eliminate any defense of good faith adoption” pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1072); see also Orange Glo Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2002) (“Complainant’s OXICLEAN mark is listed on the Principal Register of the USPTO, a status that confers constructive notice on those seeking to register or use the mark or any confusingly similar variation thereof”); see also Pfizer, Inc. v. Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the link between Complainant’s mark and the content advertised on Respondent’s website was obvious, Respondent “must have known about the Complainant’s mark when it registered the subject domain name”).

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <websterbankonline.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist

Dated:  April 23, 2004

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/438.html