About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

ZB, N.A., dba California Bank & Trust v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp.

Case No. D2016-0489

1. The Parties

The Complainant is ZB, N.A., dba California Bank & Trust of Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America ("United States") represented by Callister Nebeker & McCullough, United States.

The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp. of Nassau, New Providence, Bahamas.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <californiabankandtrust.com> is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 10, 2016. On March 11, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 15, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP"), 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 24, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 13, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on April 14, 2016.

The Center appointed Erica Aoki as the sole panelist in this matter on April 15, 2016. 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

Complainant has been using its trademarks: CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST, CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST (with design) and CALBANK NETWORK in commerce since at least as early as 1998 and respectively obtained federal registrations for the mentioned trademarks on January 10, 2006, August 14, 2001 and September 10, 2002.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <californiabankandtrust.com> on December 15, 2006. The disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click site with links to banking services.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant has done business under the name "California Bank & Trust" since October 1, 1998.

The Complainant is the owner of the trademarks CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST, CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST (with design) and CALBANK NETWORK registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office that are in use by the Complainant and registered for "banking services" and "providing financial information via a global computer network; providing electronic banking services", respectively.

Zions Bancorporation, the parent of the Complainant, has been the registrant of the domain name <calbanktrust.com> since July 13, 1998. The Complainant advertises and offers its banking services under this domain name.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's marks, CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST and CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST (with design).

Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in relation to the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way, or licensed or otherwise authorized to use the Complainant's marks in connection with a website or for any other purpose. The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, is not generally known by the disputed domain name, and has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in that name or mark.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name leads to a website that provides direct or indirect links to various banking related and other search queries, which identify services that are identical or similar to the type of services offered by the Complainant under its registered marks. The use of a domain name corresponding to a registered trademark that has the primary purpose of disrupting the business of a complainant cannot be considered either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In the Panel's view, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements specified under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:

(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in respect of which the complainant has rights; and

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

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Based on the credible assertions and evidence presented by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights, as required under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The disputed domain name is identical or, respectively, confusingly similar to the Complainant's CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST, CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST (with design) and CALBANK NETWORK marks.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds the following on the record in this proceeding:

- The Respondent is in default and thus has made no affirmative attempt to show any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name;

- The Respondent's knowledge of the Complainant's rights is presumed since CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST, CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST (with design) and CALBANK NETWORK are famous trademarks;

- The Respondent is in no way connected with the Complainant and has no authorization to use any of the Complainant's trademarks; and

- There is no evidence that the Respondent is or was commonly known by the disputed domain name as an individual, business or other organization.

Thus, in the Panel's view, the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. There is no evidence of the Respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Further, the Panel notes that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use activity.

The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

In the Panel's view, there is no doubt that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's rights in the CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST, CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST (with design) and CALBANK NETWORK marks at the time the disputed domain name was registered, indicating that such registration was made in bad faith.

The disputed domain name directs consumers, either directly or indirectly, to a website that references various banking terms and links to financial services, and likely confuses consumers as to the source of the goods being offered under the Complainant's marks. The Panel finds that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

7. Decision

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

Erica Aoki
Sole Panelist
Date: April 21, 2016

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/