Источник информации:
официальный сайт ВОИС
Для удобства навигации:
Перейти в начало каталога
Дела по доменам общего пользования
Дела по национальным доменам
WIPO Arbitration
and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE
PANEL DECISION
SAFE Credit Union v. Mike Morgan
Case No. D2006-0588
1. The Parties
The Complainant is SAFE Credit Union of North Highlands, California, represented
by Moore, Brewer, Jones & Tyler, Austin, Texas, United States of America.
The Respondent is Mike Morgan, Topsail, California,
United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is <safecreditunion.org>
(the “Domain Name”). The registrar of the Domain Name is PSI-USA,
Inc.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration
and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 9, 2006. On May 10, 2006,
the Center transmitted by e-mail to PSI-USA, Inc. a request for registrar verification
in connection with the Domain Name. On May 12, 2006, PSI-USA, Inc. transmitted
by e-mail to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent
is listed as the registrant of the Domain Name. The Center verified that the
Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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(a) and
4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings
commenced on May 29, 2006. In accordance with the Rules, Paragraph 5(a), the
due date for Respondent’s Response was June 18, 2006. Respondent did not
submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default
on June 20, 2006.
The Center appointed David M. Kelly as the sole panelist
in this matter on July 4, 2006. 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
Complainant SAFE Credit Union offers credit union services, and commercial
and consumer lending services, including savings and checking accounts, certificates
of deposit, mortgages, vehicle loans, student loans, home and business loans,
credit cards, and debit cards.
Complainant owns U.S. Registration No. 2,093,097 for the mark SAFE CREDIT UNION,
first used August 26, 1953, filed August 29, 1996, issued September 2, 1997,
covering credit union services and consumer lending services in International
Class 36; and U.S. Registration No. 2,294,483 for the mark SAFE CREDIT UNION
and Design, first used August 3, 1998, filed November 4, 1998, issued November
23, 1999, also covering credit union services and consumer lending services
in International Class 36.
Complainant also claims common law rights in its mark SAFE CREDIT UNION based
on Complainant’s use of that mark since at least as early as 1953.
According to information from Callahan’s 2006 Credit Union Directory
provided by Complainant, Complainant is the 16th largest credit union in California;
the 71st largest credit union in the U.S. in terms of asset size with assets
exceeding $1,250,000,000; and the 88th largest credit union in the U.S. in terms
of number of members. Complainant’s members, which numbered more than
114,500 as of June 30, 2005, are located throughout the U.S.
Complainant’s website, which it has operated since 1995, is currently
located at the domain name <safecu.org>. Complainant’s website provides
online banking services and information about Complainant.
Respondent uses the Domain Name for a pay-per-click website advertising links
to competing and non-competing products and services.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical
to and confusingly similar to its SAFE CREDIT UNION mark and name.
Complainant contends inter alia that Respondent
does not have any legitimate interest in the Domain Name because Respondent
allegedly uses the Domain Name for a website advertising links to competing
and non-competing products and services, and that Respondent is not known by
the name “Safe Credit Union.”
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and
uses the Domain Name in bad faith to intentionally attract Internet users to
its website for commercial gain.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s
contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the complainant must prove each of
the following: (A) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical
or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant
has rights; (B) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in
respect of the domain name; and (C) the domain name has been registered and
used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical
to Complainant’s mark SAFE CREDIT UNION because it incorporates Complainant’s
mark in its entirety and adds the generic gTLD “.org.” See,
e.g., The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. v. Mark Andreev (NAF FA0511000593127)
(holding the domain name <pnc.org> identical to the complainant’s
PNC mark because it is comprised of complainant’s mark in its entirety
and the generic top-level domain “.org”). Accordingly, the Panel
finds for Complainant under the first element of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under the Policy, the respondent’s rights or
legitimate interests to the domain name are established by demonstrating any
of the following three conditions: “(i) before any notice to you of the
dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or
a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering
of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization)
have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark
or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or
fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly
divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”
The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima
facie showing that Respondent does not meet any of the three prongs of legitimate
interest identified in the Policy, andRespondent has not filed a Response. First,
there is no evidence that Respondent is or has not been commonly known by the
Domain Name. Second, Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name
for a commercial pay-per-click website advertising links to directly competing
websites does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services
under the Policy. Third, Respondent’s activities do not constitute
a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name under the Policy.
See, e.g., DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. LaPorte Holdings, Inc. (NAF
FA0411000363051) (“[R]espondent’s use of a domain name that is confusingly
similar to [c]omplainant’s registered mark to redirect Internet users
interested in [c]omplainant’s products and services to a website containing
links to websites that offer similar products and services is not in connection
with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy [paragraph]
4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy
[paragraph] 4(c)(iii).”); Ameritrade Holding Corporation
v. Venta and Leonard Bogucki (NAF FA0506000489322) (holding respondent’s
diversionary and competing use of the domain name for a website featuring links
to competing services websites does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods
or services pursuant to Section 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair
use pursuant to Section 4(c)(iii) of the Policy). Respondent has not filed a
Response. Accordingly, the Panel finds for Complainant under the second element
of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration
and use of the Domain Name meet the bad faith element set forth in Section 4(b)(iv)
of the Policy. Specifically, Respondent in all likelihood uses the Domain
Name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its pay-per-click
website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant and its SAFE
CREDIT UNION mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and/or endorsement
of Respondent’s website, and/or the competing services advertised on Respondent’s
website. See, e.g., Vancouver City Savings Credit Union v. LaPorte Holdings
c/o Admin (NAF FA0512000608227) (holding respondent’s use of the domain
name for a website featuring links to various commercial websites for respondent’s
own commercial gain constitutes bad faith pursuant to Section 4(b)(iv) of the
Policy); IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Unasi Inc. (NAF FA0507000514785) (holding
respondent’s use of the disputed domain names for various commercial websites
using a series of hyperlinks for which respondent presumably receives referral
fees, i.e. a pay-per-click website, constitutes bad faith). Accordingly, the
Panel finds for Complainant under the third element of the Policy.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with
Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and Paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders
that the domain name <safecreditunion.org> be transferred to Complainant.
David M. Kelly
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 18, 2006