WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Comerica Bank v. Saim Raza

Case No. D2017-2292

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Comerica Bank of Dallas, Texas, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Bodman PLC, United States.

The Respondent is Saim Raza of Pakistan.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <comericabnklimit.com> and <comericabnklimits.com> are 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 November 17, 2017. On November 17, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On November 20, 2017, 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 November 24, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 14, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 15, 2017.

The Center appointed Dilek Ustun Ekdial as the sole panelist in this matter on January 2, 2018. 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 a financial services company headquartered in Dallas, Texas, with bank locations in multiple states of the United States, as well as Canada and Mexico.

The Complainant is the owner of numerous marks that consist in-whole or in-part of the mark COMERICA, including United States Registration Nos. 1,251,846, registered on September 20, 1983 and 1,776,041, registered on June 8, 1993. The Complainant has been using the COMERICA mark in connection with banking services since 1982.

The Complainant owns multiple registrations for domain names that incorporate the COMERICA mark, including, but not limited to <comerica.com>, <comerica.net> and <comerica.org>.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <comericabnklimit.com> on June 12, 2017 and the domain name <comericabnklimits.com> on June 13, 2017.

The disputed domain name <comericabnklimit.com> was blocked by its Internet browser identifying the web page as a phishing threat. Currently both domain names resolve to web pages which are automatically generated pay-per-click links.

The Complainant sent the Respondent a cease and desist letter on November 8, 2017.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its COMERICA mark because it incorporates the exact mark in its entirety. The Complainant further alleges that the addition of the words “bnk” and “limit/limits” do not make the disputed domain names distinctive.

The Complainant then contends that there is no indication that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent’s actions, including using the disputed domain names in connection with a phishing scheme and failing to respond to a cease and desist letter, are evidence of registration and use in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complaint must prove the following:

(i) The disputed domain names are 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 the disputed domain names.

(iii) The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

Because the Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations set forth by the Complainant as true and accurate.

Based on its multiple trademark registrations and longstanding and widespread use, the Panel finds that the Complainant has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has rights in the COMERICA mark.

The Panel also finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s COMERICA mark. First, the disputed domain names contain the mark in its entirety. The addition of the term “bnk limit/limits”, which is commonly used in the financial services industry, is not sufficient to render the disputed domain names distinctive. It is well established that a domain name containing a complainant’s mark along with an additional term that describes its services, satisfies the requirement that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark. M/s Daiwik Hotels Pvt. Ltd v. Senthil Kumaran S, Daiwik Resorts, WIPO Case No. D2015-1384.

Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent has not provided any evidence of the type specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or any other circumstances giving rise to a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. It is clear that the Respondent has not demonstrated any bona fide offering of goods and services by its using the disputed domain names. Nor has the Respondent shown that it has been commonly known by the disputed domain names. Rather, the evidence of the Complainant suggests that the Respondent has used the disputed domain names in an attempt to trade off the goodwill associated with the Complainant’s trademark.

The Complainant also showed, inter alia, that the Respondent has neither a license nor any other permission to use the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain names or otherwise.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, and the Respondent has failed to demonstrate such rights or legitimate interests.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that the Respondent likely chose the disputed domain names with full knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in the COMERICA mark. The COMERICA mark is well-known and has been widely used in connection with banking services since 1982.

The Respondent’s addition of the term “bnk” and “limit” or “limits” supports the Complainant’s allegation that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights in the COMERICA mark and registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. Comerica Bank v. Eli Tomlinson, Eli’s Software Encyclopedia, WIPO Case No. D2016-0044 (where a disputed domain name includes a term referring to the Complainant’s business, bad faith is found). Similarly, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with what may have been an illegitimate scheme to obtain personal or financial information from consumers looking for the Complainant, as described by the Complainant, and the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter further support a finding of bad faith registration and use.

Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied 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 names <comericabnklimit.com> and <comericabnklimits.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dilek Ustun Ekdial
Sole Panelist
Date: January 16, 2018