i) The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy).
The Complainant is the owner of the above-listed registrations for the trademarks “ALEXBANK” and “BANK OF ALEXANDRIA".
Next, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <ALEXBANK.BIZ> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. The Panel agrees that the disputed domain name differs from the mark by including eliminating spacing which domain name syntex requires, and appending the “.biz” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Such alterations have not been considered distinguishing under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bank of America Corporation v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1629452 (FORUM Aug. 18, 2015) (finding that the <blankofamerica.com> domain name contains the entire BANK OF AMERICA mark and merely adds the gTLD ‘.com’ and the letter ‘l’ to create a common misspelling of the word ‘bank.’); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (FORUM Dec. 31, 2007) (finding that “spaces are impermissible and a generic top-level domain, such as ‘.com,’ ‘.net,’ ‘.biz,’ or ‘.org,’ is required in domain names"). Therefore, the panel finds that the disputed domain name <ALEXBANK.BIZ> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s [ALEX BANK] mark. As such, the Panel holds that <ALEXBANK.BIZ> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALEX BANK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
ii) The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy).
The Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain name, since “buy domain” has nothing to do with Intesa Sanpaolo. In fact, any use of the trademarks “ALEXBANK” and “BANK OF ALEXANDRIA” has to be authorized by the Complainant. Nobody has been authorized or licensed by the Complainant's banking group to use the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name does not correspond to the name of the Respondent and, to the best of the Panel's knowledge, “buy domain” is not commonly known as “ALEXBANK”.
Lastly the Panel does not find any fair or non-commercial uses of the domain name at stake.
iii) The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy).
The disputed domain name “ALEXBANK.BIZ” was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant’s trademarks “ALEXBANK” and “BANK OF ALEXANDRIA” are distinctive and well known all around the world. The fact that the Respondent has registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to them indicates that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. In addition, if the Respondent had carried even a basic Google search in respect of the wordings “ALEXBANK” and “BANK OF ALEXANDRIA”, the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant. The Complainant submits, an extract of a Google search in support of its allegation. This raises a clear inference of knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks on the part of the Respondent. Therefore, it is more than likely that the disputed domain name would not have been registered if it were not for the Complainant’s trademarks. This is a clear evidence of registration of the domain name in bad faith.
In addition, the disputed domain name is not used for any bone fide offerings. More particularly, there are present circumstances indicating that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his web site, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his web site (par. 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). Furthermore, the next paragraphs will demonstrate that the disputed domain name has been acquired by the Respondent for the purpose of selling the disputed domain name registration to the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name itself (par. 4(b)(i) of the Policy).
First of all, several services can be detected, but not in good faith: in fact, the disputed domain name is connected to a website sponsoring banking and financial services, for whom the Complainant’s trademarks are registered and used (see also the Complainant’s official site http://www.alexbank.com home page).
Consequently, Internet users, while searching for information on the Complainant’s services, are confusingly led to the websites of the Complainant’s competitors, sponsored on the websites connected to the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the Complainant deems that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in order to intentionally divert traffic away from the Complainant’s web site.
Several WIPO decisions stated that the registration and use of a domain name to re-direct internet users to websites of competing organizations constitute bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. v. Shedon.com, WIPO Case No. D2000-0753 (“Respondent’s Ownership of a site which is a mis-spelling of Complainant’s britannica.com site and which Respondent used to hyperlink to a gambling site demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the britannnica.com domain name”); YAHOO! INC. v. David Murray, Case No. D2000-1013 (finding bad faith where respondent chooses a domain name similar to the complainant’s mark for a site which offers services similar to the complainant); Edmunds.com v. Ultimate Search, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-1319 (“Registration and use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to websites of competing organizations constitutes bad faith registration and use under the Policy”); Netwizards, Inc. v. Spectrum Enterprises, WIPO Case No. D2000-1768 (“Registration and continued use of the contested domain name for re-directing Internet users, i.e. particularly customers and potential customers of the Complainant, from the Complainant’s website to the website of…a company which directly competes with the Complainant, constitutes bad faith registration and use”); Oly Holigan, L.P. v. Private, Case No. FA0011000095940 (finding bad faith where respondent used the disputed domain name to “redirect the Complainant’s consumers and potential consumers to commercial websites which are not affiliated with Complainant”); Marriott International, Inc. v. Kyznetsov, Case No. FA0009000095648 (finding bad faith where respondent registered the domain name <marriottrewards.com> and used it to route internet traffic to another website that “promotes travel and hotel services . . . identical to the services offered by the Complainant”); Zwack Unicom Ltd v. Duna, WIPO Case No. D2000-0037 (respondent’s linking to complainant’s competitor held to constitute bad faith); Schneider Electric SA v. Ningbo Wecans Network Technology Co., Ltd, Ningbo Eurosin International Trade Co., Ltd., Case No. D2004-0554; Microsoft Corporation v. StepWeb, Case No. D2000-1500; Baudville, Inc. v. Henry Chan, Case No. D2004-0059; National City Corporation v. MH Networks LLC, Case No. D2004-0128.
|