WorldLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions >> 2004 >> [2004] GENDND 992

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Citigroup Inc. v. Horoshiy, Inc. a/k/a Horoshiy [2004] GENDND 992 (11 August 2004)


National Arbitration Forum

DECISION

Citigroup Inc. v. Horoshiy, Inc. a/k/a Horoshiy

Claim Number:  FA0406000290633

PARTIES

Complainant is Citigroup Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Bruce Goldner of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Four Times Square, New York, NY 10036.  Respondent is Horoshiy, Inc. a/k/a Horoshiy (“Respondent”), F.D. Rooseveltweg #518, Curacao, AN.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <citibankonlinebanking.com> and <citibankbusinessonline.com>, registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com.

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 28, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 1, 2004.

On July 1, 2004, Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <citibankonlinebanking.com> and <citibankbusinessonline.com> are registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 July 12, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of August 2, 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@citibankonlinebanking.com and postmaster@citibankbusinessonline.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 August 6, 2004, 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.

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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

1. Respondent’s <citibankonlinebanking.com> and <citibankbusinessonline.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITIBANK marks.

2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <citibankonlinebanking.com> and <citibankbusinessonline.com> domain names.

3. Respondent registered and used the <citibankonlinebanking.com> and <citibankbusinessonline.com> domain names in bad faith.

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

FINDINGS

On October 8, 1998, Complainant, Citigroup Inc., was formed through a business combination between Citicorp and Travelers Group Inc.  Complainant is in the business of providing financial services, including consumer and commercial lending, credit card services, investment and advisory services, real estate services and venture capital services, banking services and numerous other services. 

Through its wholly owned subsidiaries, Citicorp and Citibank, N.A., Complainant owns more than 100 trademark registrations for a variety of marks featuring the CITI mark (Reg. No. 1,181,467 issued December 8, 1981), including CITIBANK (Reg. No. 691,815 issued January 19, 1960), CITIBANKING (Reg. No. 1,284,589 issued July 3, 1984), and CITIBUSINESS (Reg. No. 2,263,621 issued July 20, 1999).

Complainant, through its predecessors in interest, has used the CITIBANK, CITIBANKING, and CITIBUSINESS marks (“CITIBANK marks”) continuously and extensively since 1959 in connection with its financial services business.  Complainant owns over 1,700 branches and 5,100 ATMs in approximately 100 countries. 

Complainant owns approximately 800 domain name registrations that feature the CITI marks, including many featuring the CITIBANK marks.  Some of the domain name registrations owned by Complainant include <citibankonline.com>, <citibank.com>, and <citi.com>. 

Respondent registered the   <citibankbusinessonline.com> domain name on November 12, 2003 and the <citibankonlinebanking.com> domain name on February 13, 2003.  Respondent is using the domain names to offer search engine websites that feature links to Complainant’s services and those of many of its competitors in the financial services business.  Some of the links are for such categories as “top sites related to Citibank” and “top sites related to Online Banking.”  Additionally, typing in either of the disputed domain names generates “pop-up” advertisements that result in “mousetrapping” the Internet users who must close all the windows to exit the websites.           

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 with extrinsic proof in this proceeding that it has rights in the CITIBANK marks through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and by continuous use of its marks in commerce for the last forty-five 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 Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.  Respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption).

The <citibankonlinebanking.com> and <citibankbusinessonline.com> domain names registered by Respondent are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITIBANK marks, because the domain names include several of the marks in their entirety, adding only generic or descriptive terms.  Furthermore, the descriptive terms used describe aspects of Complainant’s business such as the terms “business” and “banking.”  The mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate the confusing similarity of Respondent’s domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  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 Complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where Respondent’s domain name combines Complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business). 

The <citibankonlinebanking.com> domain name includes a combination of Complainant’s CITIBANK and CITBANKING marks with the generic term “online,” while the <citibankbusinessonline.com> domain name combines Complainant’s CITIBANK and CITIBUSINESS marks with the generic term “online.”  The practice of combining more than one of Complainant’s marks does not cancel out the confusingly similar nature of Respondent’s domain names.  See Nintendo of Am. Inc. v. Pokemon, D2000-1230 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where respondent combined Complainant's POKEMON and PIKACHU marks to form the <pokemonpikachu.com> domain name).

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

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has alleged that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <citibankonlinebanking.com> and <citibankbusinessonline.com> domain names, which contain Complainant’s CITIBANK marks in their entirety.  Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel will assume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.  In fact, once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests in the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that where Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name it is incumbent on Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that once Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, the burden shifts to Respondent to provide credible evidence that substantiates its claim of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because Respondent never submitted a response or provided the Panel with evidence to suggest otherwise).

Furthermore, where Complainant makes the prima facie showing and Respondent does not respond, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations and inferences in the Complaint as true.  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 Complainant to be deemed true).

Respondent is using the <citibankonlinebanking.com> and <citibankbusinessonline.com> domain names to redirect Internet users to similar websites that feature search engines, “pop-up” advertisements, and links to online banking and business websites, which are in direct competition with the products and services offered by Complainant under its CITIBANK marks.  Respondent’s use of domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITIBANK marks to redirect Internet users interested in Complainant’s products to a commercial website that offers a search engine and products and services that compare with those offered by Complainant is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Dot Stop, FA 145227 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 17, 2003) (finding that Respondent’s diversionary use of Complainant’s mark to attract Internet users to its own website, which contained a series of hyperlinks to unrelated websites, was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names); see also Computer Doctor Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Computer Doctor, FA 95396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s website, which is blank but for links to other websites, is not a legitimate use of the domain names).

Finally, Respondent offered no evidence and nothing in the record suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the <citibankonlinebanking.com> and <citibankbusinessonline.com> domain names.  Furthermore, Complainant has not licensed Respondent to use the CITIBANK marks.  Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  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 Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name).

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

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent intentionally registered the <citibankonlinebanking.com> and <citibankbusinessonline.com> domain names that contain Complainant’s well-known CITIBANK marks for Respondent’s commercial gain.  Respondent’s domain names divert Internet users who seek Complainant’s CITIBANK marks to Respondent’s commercial website through the use of domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks.  Furthermore, Respondent is unfairly and opportunistically benefiting from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s CITIBANK marks.  Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain, constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See 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 Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that Respondent had engaged in bad faith use and registration by linking the domain name to a website that offers services similar to Complainant’s services, intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks); see also Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Lab., D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent's use of the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where similar services are offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that Complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the site).

Furthermore, Respondent registered the <citibankonlinebanking.com> and <citibankbusinessonline.com> domain names for the primary purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business by redirecting Internet traffic intended for Complainant to Respondent’s website that directly competes with Complainant.  Registration of a domain name for the primary purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with Complainant’s business); see also EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000)  (finding that the minor degree of variation from Complainant's marks suggests that Respondent, Complainant’s competitor, registered the names primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant's business).

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 relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <citibankonlinebanking.com> and <citibankbusinessonline.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist

Dated:  August 11, 2004


WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/992.html