Comerica Bank v. Rob Patel / Domain Admin, Privacy Protection provider Inc d/b/a

1. The Events

The Complainant is Comerica Bank, Dallas, Texas, united states (United States Of America), represented by Bodman LLP, United States Of America.

The Respondent is Rob Patel of Mumbai, Kerala, Asia / Domain Admin, Privacy Protection provider Inc d/b/a of Nobby Beach, Queensland, Australia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered a/k/a Media Elite Holdings Limited (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint had been filed with all the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”). The Center sent by e-mail to your Registrar a obtain registrar verification associated with the disputed website name. The Registrar sent by e-mail into the Center its verification reaction disclosing registrant and contact information when it comes to disputed website name which differed through the named Respondent and email address when you look at the issue. The middle delivered a message interaction to your Complainant supplying the contact and registrant information disclosed by the Registrar, and welcoming the Complainant to submit an amendment into the problem. The Complainant filed an amendment to your grievance.

The Center verified that the problem with the amendment into the grievance satisfied the formal needs associated with Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the principles for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), while the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

Prior to the guidelines, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the guts formally notified the Respondent associated with the Complaint, in addition to procedures commenced. Prior to the guidelines, paragraph 5(a), the deadline for reaction had been. The Respondent would not submit any reaction. Appropriately, the middle notified the default that is respondent’s.

The middle appointed Dr. Clive N.A. Trotman whilst the single panelist in this matter. The Panel discovers it was correctly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of recognition and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as needed by the Center to make sure compliance because of the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

In accordance with the Complainant, it really is an economic solutions business bank that is having other business areas in the united states, Canada and Mexico. A sign of this scale for the Complainant’s company is so it had over USD65 billion in assets as by the end.

The Complainant holds some 40 trademarks comprising or embodying the expressed word“comerica” registered or pending during the U.S. Patent and Trademark workplace (USPTO), of that the after are representative:

COMERICA, USPTO principal register, enrollment number 1,251,846, registered, worldwide course 36;

COMERICA (and design), USPTO principal register, enrollment quantity 1,776,041, registered, worldwide course 36.

The Complainant additionally has names of domain including , and .

There is nothing understood concerning the Respondent aside from such details as had been submitted to your Registrar so that you can register the disputed domain name, that is recorded when you look at the WhoIs as having been developed.

5. Events’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant has produced copies of USPTO on the web enrollment papers in proof its ownership regarding the trademarks numbered 1,251,846 and 1,776,041 as detailed in part 4 above.

The Complainant contends that the trademark COMERICA is a coined term that is distinctive, effective and symbolizes the goodwill associated with the Complainant. The Complainant claims it invests vast amounts yearly in promotion underneath the trademark and therefore the trademark is famous under united states of america federal and state trademark rules.

The Complainant contends that the disputed website name is identical or confusingly like the trademark COMERICA with the exception of the omission associated with page “e”, which will be a typical mistake that is typographical.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent won’t have any liberties or interest that is legitimate the disputed website name and therefore the Complainant has not yet allowed the Respondent to utilize the trademark. The Complainant states there’s no proof of the Respondent’s demonstrable preparations to make use of the disputed domain title or an equivalent title associated with a genuine offering of products or solutions, or that the Respondent is commonly understood because of the disputed website name. The Complainant claims there isn’t any proof that the Respondent is making the best noncommercial or reasonable utilization of the disputed website name without intent to derive commercial gain.

The Complainant further contends that the domain that is disputed ended up being registered and it is getting used in bad faith and therefore it resolves to a parking web page with links advertising economic solutions just like the Complainant’s. The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s enrollment of the domain that is disputed therefore like the Complainant’s well-known trademark, of that your Respondent must have been conscious, ought to be enough for a choosing of bad faith.

The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking web page containing links, and had been performing this. The Respondent has tried to attract internet surfers by making an impression that is confusing the Respondent’s internet site could have the Complainant’s recommendation. It really is submitted that it was done for commercial gain because well-known training is actually for a site to produce links with other commercial sites for the goal of gathering payment whenever such links are followed. It really is further https://mycashcentral.com/payday-loans-mi/waterford/ submitted that bad faith exists regardless of whether the gain that is commercial to your advantage the Respondent or even 3rd events including the parking solution or even the marketing solution.

The Complainant claims that in 2004 the disputed website name had been utilized to market an online sites provider known as NetZero and therefore in consequence internet surfers would plausibly have thought that the information for the web site had the recommendation associated with the Complainant.

The Complainant has cited particular past decisions under the UDRP so it wants the Panel to think about to be appropriate.

The Complainant requests the transfer to it self associated with domain name that is disputed.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) associated with the Policy states that the Respondent is needed to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the function that the Complainant asserts into the relevant provider, in conformity using the Rules, that:

“(i) your domain title is identical or confusingly just like a trademark or solution mark where the complainant has legal rights; and

(ii) you have got no legal rights or genuine passions in respect for the website name; and

(iii) your website name is registered and it is getting used in bad faith.”

The Complainant has made the appropriate assertions as above. The dispute is precisely inside the range associated with the Policy as well as the Panel has jurisdiction to choose the dispute.

The Panel in this situation is pleased that the middle has satisfied its responsibilities to try to contact the Respondent operating of this problem relative to paragraph 2 associated with the Rules.