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

Citigroup Inc. v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Izuchukwu Anselem, citifx

Case No. D2020-1819

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Citigroup Inc., United States of America, represented by Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, PC, United States of America.

The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Izuchukwu Anselem, citifx, Nigeria.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <citifxinstitute.com> (“the Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 10, 2020. On July 13, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 14, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 15, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on July 20, 2020.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 July 23, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 12, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 13, 2020.

The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on August 20, 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 or its group of companies owns a number of trade mark registrations incorporating the terms CITI and CITI FX including:

CITI registered as a trade mark in the United States of America Registration No.1,181,467 in connection with financial services registered on December 8, 1981; and

CITIFX registered as a trade mark in the United States of America Registration No. 2,465,567 in connection with financial and foreign exchange services registered on July 3, 2001.

The Domain Name registered in 2019 has been used for competing financial services not associated with the Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:

The Domain Name registered in 2019 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. In particular it contains, the Complainant’s CITIFX mark in its entirety, adding only the dictionary word “institute” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” which do not prevent said confusing similarity under the Policy.

The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant.

The Respondent is using the Domain Name in connection with a website that offers financial information in the fields of foreign exchange and trading services, and also offers investment services in the fields of foreign exchange and trading, services that directly compete with the services Citigroup provides under its CITI and CITIFX marks. This is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. It is registration and use in bad faith diverting Internet consumers for commercial gain, thereby disrupting the Complainant’s business.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name consist of the Complainant’s CITIFX mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the United States of America for financial services since 1991), the descriptive term “institute” and the gTLD “.com”.

The addition of a dictionary term and a gTLD does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between a domain name and a trade mark contained within it under the Policy.

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered CITIFX mark under the Policy.

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4 (a) (i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its marks by the Respondent.

The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name.

Using the Domain Name containing the Complainant’s CITIFX mark with a reputation for financial services for competing services not connected with the Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy.

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The use of the distinctive combination of “citi” and “fx” in relation to financial services makes it more likely than not that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant, its CITIFX mark and the Complainant’s business and services at the time of registration of the Domain Name.

In the opinion of the Panel the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the Respondent’s site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it offers financial services under a Domain Name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CITIFX mark (which has a reputation for financial services), and does not make it clear there is no connection to the Complainant.

The Respondent’s use is commercial and designed to take advantage of the goodwill in the Complainant’s prior CITIFX mark.

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark CITIFX mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant.

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(iv) and 4 (b)(iii).

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 Domain Name <citifxinstitute.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: August 31, 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/