WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

UniCredit Spa v. Web Address Inc, Williams Makinde /Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc.

Case No. D2016-2307

1. The Parties

The Complainant is UniCredit Spa of Italy, represented by Array, Italy.

The Respondent is Web Address Inc, Williams Makinde of Marlyland, United States of America (“USA”) / Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. of Panama.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

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

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 11, 2016, identifying the Respondent as Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. The Center transmitted its request for registrar verification to the Registrar the same day. The Registrar replied on November 15, 2016, providing the contact details held on its WhoIs database in respect of the Domain Name. The Registrar also confirmed that the Domain Name had been placed under a locked status to prevent transfers or changes to the registration information during the proceedings and that the registration agreement was in English and required the registrant to consent to the jurisdiction of the courts of King County, Washington, USA.

The contact details provided by the Registrar differed from those provided in the Complaint. The Center sent an email to the Complainant on November 18, 2016, drawing this to its attention and inviting it to amend the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on November 21, 2016, identifying the Respondent in accordance with the details provided by the Registrar.

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 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 23, 2016. In accordance with paragraph 5 of the Rules, the due date for Response was December 13, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 14, 2016

The Center appointed Jonathan Turner as the sole panelist in this matter on December 28, 2016. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with paragraph 7 of the Rules. Having reviewed the file, the Panel is satisfied that the Complaint together with the amendment to it complied with applicable formal requirements, was duly notified to the Respondent and has been submitted to a properly constituted Panel in accordance with the UDRP, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is the third largest bank group in Europe. It has registered a logo consisting primarily of the word “UniCredit” as a trademark in a number of countries pursuant to an international application.

The Domain Name does not locate any publicly available web page. The Internic WhoIs database entry for the Domain Name states that the name server has been blocked due to phishing.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark described above.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In this regard it points out that it is a well known banking group and the Respondent could have no possible rights or reasonable commercial interest in the Domain Name; that the Respondent is hiding behind a privacy shield and is not commonly known by and has not used the Domain Name; and that there is no evidence of any other legitimate commercial interest of the Respondent in the Domain Name.

The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant draws attention to the indication in the Internic WhoIs database entry for the Domain Name that the name server has been blocked due to phishing.

The Complainant seeks a decision that the Domain Name be transferred to it.

B. Respondent

As stated above, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove: (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It is appropriate to consider each of these requirements in turn.

In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from the Respondent’s default in failing to file a response. This includes the acceptance of plausible evidence of the Complainant which has not been disputed.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered rights in a logo consisting primarily of the word “UniCredit”. The Panel further finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to this mark. The Domain Name differs from the dominant element of the mark only in the omission of the letter “a” and the addition of the generic top level domain suffix. The Panel has no doubt that there is a serious risk that Internet users seeking a website of the Complainant may enter the Domain Name by mistake. The first requirement of the UDRP is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. It is evident that the Respondent has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and on the material in the file there is no other basis on which the Respondent could claim to have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The second requirement of the UDRP is satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent has not rebutted the evidence that the name server has been blocked for phishing and the Panel infers that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith for this purpose. In the circumstances, the Respondent’s retention of the Domain Name with the threat that phishing might continue or resume amounts to use in bad faith.

All three substantive conditions for upholding a complaint under the UDRP are satisfied and it is appropriate to direct that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.

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, <unicreditbnk.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Jonathan Turner
Sole Panelist
Date: January 7, 2017