{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-006413",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "irbsc.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Royal Bank of Scotland PLC Royal Bank of Scotland PLC (Royal Bank of Scotland PLC)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Domain eMarketing Domain eMarketing (Navilive Private Limited)"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "1.\tThe Royal Bank of Scotland public limited company, (Company number 90312) is a company incorporated in Scotland.  The Royal Bank of Scotland is an international banking and financial services company, widely known by its name RBS.\r\n\r\n2.\tThe Royal Bank of Scotland Group public limited company owns numerous trade mark registrations for RBS around the world, including Community trade mark number 97469, registered on 23 March 1998 for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 42. \r\n\r\n3.\tThe Complainant has a large number of domain name registrations incorporating its trade mark RBS.  The Complainant's official website operates under the domain name rbs.com.\r\n\r\n4.\tThe disputed domain name irbsc.eu (Domain Name) was registered on 22 February 2012. The expiry date of the Domain Name is 28 February 2013 and its status is currently shown as 'On Hold'. \r\n\r\n5.\tThe Domain Name previously resolved to a page featuring the Complainant’s RBS  trademark and displaying contents related to financial services and as well as a log in feature seeking  Account number and Account pin.\r\n\r\n6.\tOn 31 October 2012 the Complainant sent the Respondent a cease and desist letter and requested the voluntary transfer of the domain name. No response was received to this or to a follow up email.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Procedural History\r\n\r\n1.\tThe original Complaint, dated 14 December 2012, named EURid as the Respondent and identified the domain name holder (the registrant) as the registrar. The ADR Centre notified the Complainant of deficiencies in the Compliant on 9 January 2013.   \r\n\r\n2.\tThe amended Complaint was filed on 10 January 2013 by a representative of Melbourne IT DBS as the Complainant's representative. \r\n\r\n3.\tUnder the Paragraph B1 (b) (15) of the ADR Rules, the Complaint is required to be signed by the Complainant or its authorized representative. The Power of Attorney filed with the Complaint authorising Melbourne IT DBS in the UK to act as it representative expired on 31 December 2012. \r\n\r\n4.\tOn 26 April 2013 the Panel made a request under paragraph 8 of the ADR Rules which:\r\n\r\n(i)\trequested further information from the Complainant \r\n(ii)\tdirected that the Respondent be given 7 days from the date of delivery of the Complainant’s submission within which to make a submission in response; and \r\n(iii)\tdirected that the Panel file the decision within seven (7) days of the Respondent’s submission or within seven (7) days after the period for its submission has ended.\r\n\r\n5.\tOn 2 May 2013 the Complainant filed a Non-Standard Communication of which:\r\n\r\n(i)\tAnnex 1 states:\r\n\r\n'AMENDMENT Case Number 06413 \r\nNotice of Change in Registrant Information \r\nThe Complainant in the above referenced proceeding was originally named ‘The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC’. The term ‘Group’ was accidently left out from the name of the Complainant in the filed Complaint. The Complainant would like to make the following amendment concerning the identity of the Complainant: \r\nLegal Entity: The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc.'\r\n\r\n(ii)\tAnnex 2 sets out a list of Melbourne IT DBS office locations, including its address in Sweden which is the Complainant's Representative's address set out in the Complaint.\r\n\r\n(iii)\ta new Power of Attorney was referred to as being attached to the Complainant's Non-Standard Communication.  \r\n\r\n6.\tOn 5 May 2013 the Case Administrator notified the Complainant that no Power of Attorney was attached it its Non-Standard Communication dated 2 May 2013.  \r\n\r\n7.\tOn 10 May 2013, the Complainant filed a further Non-Standard Communication to which was annexed a Power of Attorney, appointing Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services to act on The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc's behalf on domain name dispute resolution and recovery until 31 December 2013.\r\n\r\n8.\tRegarding the Complainant's submission on the error in the Complainant's name, the Complaint is treated as having been made by joint Complainant's, the Royal Bank of Scotland plc and The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc.   \r\n\r\n9.\tThe Panel is satisfied that the Provider has used reasonable available means to achieve actual notice of the Complaint to the Respondent.  The Panel is further satisfied that in accordance with Art. 2 (b) of the ADR Rules the Provider has discharged its obligation to achieve actual notice of the Complaint to the Respondent.\r\n\r\nDiscussions and findings\r\n\r\nThe Panel is obliged under Rule 11(a) of the ADR Rules to decide a Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the ADR Rules, the Supplemental ADR Rules and Regulations 733\/2002 and 874\/2004.\r\n\r\nArticle 22 of Commission Regulation (EC) number 874\/2004 ('the Regulation') provides that an ADR procedure may be initiated by any party where the registration is speculative or abusive within the meaning or Article 21. \r\n \r\nUnder Article 21 of the Regulation, a registered domain name shall be subject to revocation where the name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or community law and where: \r\n \r\n(a) it has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or \r\n \r\n(b) it has been used in bad faith. \r\n \r\nOnce the Complainant has established that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a Right is recognised or established by national law of a member state and\/or Community law, the Complainant has only to prove one of the elements set out in Article 21 1.(a) or (b), namely, that it is registered without rights or legitimate interests in the name or has been registered or used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not filed a Response.  Under Article 22(10) of the Regulations, failure of any of the parties involved in an ADR proceeding to respond within the given deadlines may be considered grounds for accepting the claims of the other party.  Rule 10(a) of the ADR Rules states that in the event of a default, the Panel shall proceed to a decision and may consider the failure to comply as grounds to accept the claims of the other party.  Under Rule 10(b) of the ADR Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from a default as it considers appropriate. \r\n \r\nRIGHTS \r\n \r\nThe Domain Name consists of letters 'irbsc' plus the addition of the suffix .eu. It is accepted practice to ignore the .eu suffix when determining whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national or Community law.\r\n\r\nRights that can be asserted in respect of a name include national and Community trade marks, unregistered trade marks, trade names, business identifiers and company names (Article 10 (1) of the Regulation).\r\n\r\nThe Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc holds an extensive portfolio of trade mark registrations throughout the world for the mark RBS, including CTM number 97469, registered on 23 March 1998 in respect of goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 42.  RBS is a well-known brand throughout the world in connection with banking and financial services.  \r\n\r\nDetermining whether the Domain Name is identical to a name in respect of which the Complainant has Rights needs to be viewed in context. The likelihood of confusion should consider all the surrounding circumstances.\r\n\r\nViewed in isolation RBS may not be instantly recognisable as the dominant part of the Domain Name.  However, the Doman Name linked to a website which featured the Complainant's trade mark RBS and was being used to 'phish' for customer information. In this context the letters 'RBS' take on greater significance and are an influential feature of the Domain Name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the addition of the prefix 'i' and the suffix 'c' to the RBS trade mark to form the Domain Name does not detract from the overall impression that the Domain Name is connected to the Complainant and is confusingly similar to its RBS trade mark. In not filing a response the Respondent has chosen not to challenge the Complainant's submission.\r\n\r\nIn the overall assessment of the Domain Name, the letters 'RBS' are dominant within the Domain Name in that visitors to the website are likely to pay more attention to the letters 'RBS' in connection with the banking services that appear to be offered via the website using the Domain Name.\r\n\r\nAs stated by the Panel in Royal Bank of Scotland v Arbechay, Adalbrecht Engelbert (<rbs-lines.com> D2012-0665)  'In the Panel’s view, the owner of a well-known trademark does not have to tolerate to be brought into connection with an individual or legal entity with which it has no connection. This rule is also valid for ordinary trademarks, but the risk of an indirect connotation is heightened by the fame surrounding a well-known trademark.\r\n\r\nConsidering all the surrounding circumstances, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or community law.\r\n\r\nNO LEGITIMATE INTERESTS \r\n \r\nIn the absence of a Response or any evidence showing a legitimate interest or fair use of the Domain Name by the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. \r\n \r\nBAD FAITH \r\n \r\nHaving determined that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name it is not necessary to determine whether it has been registered in bad faith as alleged by the Complainant.  However, for completeness it is proposed to address this issue. \r\n \r\nUnder Article 21(3)(d) of the Regulations, bad faith may be demonstrated in a number of ways, including where:\r\n \" the domain name was intentionally used to attract Internet users, for commercial gain to the holder of the domain name  website… by creating a likelihood of confusion with a name on which a right is recognised or established by national or Community  law,… such likelihood arising from the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location of the holder of the domain name ” \r\n \r\nThe Respondent used the Domain Name to engage in 'phishing' using the Complainant’s registered trade mark, RBS to deceive the Complainant’s customers and manipulate them into divulging sensitive financial information. Although the website is currently inactive and the Doman Name is 'on hold' the Respondent has given no assurances it will refrain from using the Domain Name in a way which suggests and affiliation with the Complainant or the RBS brand.\r\n   \r\nThe Panel finds, on the evidence submitted, that the Domain Name was used to attract internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with a name in which a right is recognised or established by national or Community Law as set out in Article 21 3.(d) of the Regulation.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name IRBSC be transferred to the Complainant, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2013-04-23 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: irbsc.eu\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: GREAT BRITAIN, country of the Respondent: GREAT BRITAIN\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: 22 February 2012\r\n\r\nIV.    Rights relied on by the Complainant (Art. 21 (1) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004) on which the Panel based its decision is CTM, reg. No. 97469, for RBS, registered on 23 March 1998 in respect of goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 42\r\n\r\nV.    Response submitted: No\r\n\r\nVI.   The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the protected rights of the Complainant\r\n\r\nVII.  Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (Art. 21 (2) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        1. No\r\n        2. Why:The Respondent did not file a Response and there is no evidence to suggest a legitimate use of the Doman Name.\r\n\r\nVIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        1. Yes\r\n        2. Why:The Respondent used the Domain Name to suggest a connection with RBS in order to obtain RBS customers' account number and account pin details.  The Respondent is not authorised to use the RBS trade mark and has no connection with the Complainant. The Domain Name was used to attract internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with a name in which a right is recognised or established by national or Community Law as set out in Article 21 3.(d) of the Regulation.\r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: None\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant:\r\n1.\tThe original Complaint, dated 14 December 2012, named EURid as the Respondent and identified the domain name holder (the registrant) as the registrar. The Provider notified the Complainant of deficiencies in the Complaint.\r\n\r\n2.\tOn 10 January 2013 the amended Complaint was filed by a representative of Melbourne IT DBS as the Complainant's representative.  The Complainant's name was shown as 'Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Royal Bank of Scotland plc'.   \r\n\r\n3.\tUnder the Paragraph B1 (b) (15) of the ADR Rules, the Complaint is required to be signed by the Complainant or its authorized representative. The Power of Attorney filed with the Complaint authorising Melbourne IT DBS to act as The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC's representative had expired on 31 December 2012. \r\n\r\n4.\tOn 26 April the Panel made a request under paragraph 8 of the ADR Rules for further information from the Complainant. The Respondent was given 7 days in which to respond to any further submission made by the Complainant and the Decision date was postponed until that period had expired.\r\n\r\n5.\tOn 2 May 2013 the Complainant filed a Non-standard communication seeking to amend the name of the Complainant to The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC.  \r\n\r\n6.\tOn 10 May 2013, the Complainant filed a new Power of Attorney valid until 31 December 2013, appointing Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services to act on behalf of The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc's for domain name dispute resolution and recovery. \r\n\r\n\r\nXII.  Is Complainant eligible? Yes",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}