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

Deutsche Kreditbank AG v. Guinnevere Parise, GrowthMind

Case No. D2020-0073

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Deutsche Kreditbank AG, Germany, represented by K&L Gates LLP, Germany.

The Respondent is Guinnevere Parise, GrowthMind, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <securedkb.com> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 14, 2020. On January 15, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 17, 2020, 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 January 17, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 6, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 14, 2020.

The Center appointed Mario Soerensen Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on March 6, 2020. 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 Deutsche Kreditbank AG, a well-known German (online) bank, which has been operating under the commercial name “Deutsche Kreditbank” or “DKB” since 1990.

The Complainant owns several trademark registrations in many jurisdictions, including the following:

- German trademark DKB applied on March 21, 1995, under No. 395.12.394, and registered on July 19, 1995;

- European Union trademark DKB applied on July 17, 2007, under No. 006107569, and registered on September 17, 2008; and

- European Union trademark DKB DAS KANN BANK applied on November 4, 2015, under No. 014765887, and registered on March 9, 2016.

In addition, the Complainant also owns the domain name <dkb.de> which represents its official website and its subsidiary DKB Service GmbH holds the domain name <dkb.com> which directs to the official website.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 17, 2019, and resolves to a page almost identical to the Complainant’s official website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant informs that it has registered many trademarks for DKB throughout the world and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks.

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name adds its entire mark DKB with the addition of the generic term “secure” which is not sufficient to avoid the confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademark.

The Complainant mentions that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name, has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of it, is not a licensee of its trademarks and does not hold rights in the commercial name DKB.

Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith since the Respondent knew the Complainant’s activities and its trademarks and is using the disputed domain name to mislead users to its website, which resolves to a page almost identical with the Complainant’s website page, also reproducing the mark DKB DAS KANN BANK. The Complainant concludes that the disputed domain name creates the concrete risk of phishing for personal customer data with sensitive information.

The Complainant also states that the disputed domain name seems to have been registered without disclosing the real identity since online searches could not find Guinnevere Parise and/or GrowthMind in San Francisco and the email address is a strong indication for fraudulent purposes.

Finally, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

As per paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:

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

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

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The evidence demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for DKB in different jurisdictions.

The disputed domain name incorporates the famous Complainant’s trademark DKB in its entirety. The addition of the term “secure” does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark.

It is the general view among UDRP panels that the addition of merely dictionary, descriptive or geographical words to a trademark in a domain name is normally insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP (for example, Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2001-0110).

Also, as numerous prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety or a dominant feature of a trademark is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark. See section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been proved by the Complainant, i.e., the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent has not submitted a response to the Complaint.

There is no evidence that the Respondent has any authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark or to register domain names containing the Complainant’s trademark DKB.

There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.

There is no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name or that before any notice of the dispute the Respondent has made 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. Instead, the Complainant showed necessary evidence that the disputed domain name was being used to mislead users since the page linked with the disputed domain name displays almost identical layout and colors of the Complainant’s official website and reproduces the famous mark DKB DAS KANN BANK.

The Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, does not correspond to a bona fide use of the disputed domain name under the Policy.

For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The trademark DKB is registered by the Complainant in several jurisdictions and has been used since a long time. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark DKB in its entirety and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant’s DKB mark is widely well-known and is also considered a reputed trademark worldwide. Thus, a domain name that comprises such a mark in its entirety is suggestive of the registrant’s bad faith. In addition, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name includes the term “secure”, which in this case may serve as an additional evidence of the registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith, especially considering that the Complainant does business in the financial market and the addition of the term "secure" was certainly intended to try to make the consumer more confident in accessing the website, as it may reinforce to the Internet users the idea that the disputed domain name indeed refers to the Complainant or to an official website of the Complainant.

The Complainant showed evidence that the disputed domain name was used by the Respondent to mislead users into believing that the corresponding website was related to the Complainant, by displaying an almost identical layout and the reproduction of the Complainant’s mark.

Therefore, this Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to cause confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.

This Panel finds that the Respondent’s attempt of taking undue advantage of the trademark DKB for commercial gain as described in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy has been demonstrated.

For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 <securedkb.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mario Soerensen Garcia
Sole Panelist
Date: March 20, 2020

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/