Regent Bank v Trey Fisher

WIPO Case No. D2024-2995

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Regent Bank v. Trey Fisher

Case No. D2024-2995

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Regent Bank, United States of America (“United States”), represented by

101domain.com, United States.

The Respondent is Trey Fisher, United Kingdom.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <regentinvest.online> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 23, 2024. On
July 24, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On July 24, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the
Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name
which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint.
The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 5, 2024, providing the registrant and
contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the

Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 10, 2024.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 August 12, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was September 1, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 4, 2024.

The Center appointed John Swinson as the sole panelist in this matter on September 10, 2024. 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

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a community bank located in Oklahoma, United States. The Complainant was established in 1898 and renamed to its current name in 2003.

The Complainant’s primary website is located at the domain name <regent.bank>. According to this website, the Complainant’s original name was “Bank of Nowata”. The name “Regent Bank” was introduced in 2003 because, according to the Complainant’s website (included as an Annexure to the Complaint): “The name Regent means ‘a Trustee or overseer’ and certainly embodies the type of relationship we have with our clients.”

The Complainant does not have a registered trademark for REGENT but claims common law trademark rights due to its consistent and consecutive use of REGENT since 2003. Along with its primary domain name and website mentioned above, the Complainant also maintains several other REGENT-formative domain names, such as <regentbank.online>, <regentbankonline.com>, and <regentbank.com>.

The Respondent did not file a Response, so little information is known about the Respondent. According to the Registrar’s records, the Respondent has an address is Bristol, United Kingdom. The Respondent’s address and contact details in the Registrar’s records are incomplete.

The disputed domain name was registered on October 6, 2023.

The disputed domain name resolved to a website that impersonated the Complainant, including using the Complainant’s evergreen tree logo on the website. The website gave the impression of being a legitimate banking website.

MX records were created to connect active email services with the disputed domain name.

The Complainant submitted a DMCA Takedown Notice with the domain’s hosting provider of record on May
20, 2024, and with the Registrar on May 30, 2024. The website was subsequently suspended by the

Registrar.

The disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that through substantial use in the region in which the Complainant operates, the Complainant has developed common law trademark rights in REGENT. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to commit a fraud. The Respondent must be aware of the Complainant because the Respondent uses the Complainant’s “evergreen tree” logo on the Respondent’s fraudulent website.

B. Respondent

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

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the

Policy have been satisfied, namely:

(i) the disputed domain name is 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 respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Panel finds the Complainant has established unregistered trademark or service mark rights for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.3.

The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms (here, “invest”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, claimed fraud and impersonation, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

page 4

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

The Respondent’s conduct demonstrates the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark. By registering and using the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant, it is clear that the Respondent specifically knew of and targeted the Complainant to trick the public into believing that the Respondent is associated with the Complainant and to transfer money to the Respondent.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here, claimed fraud and impersonation)
constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the
Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. See,
for example, Regal Funds Management Pty Limited v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / John
Clerk, WIPO Case No. D2020-2773; and Zenith Payments Pty Ltd v. BPW Mysin Vadim Yurievich, WIPO
Case No. D2021-3217.

The Panel also notes that the Respondent has not filed a Response and hence has not availed himself of the opportunity to present any case of good faith that he might have. The Panel infers that none exists.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 name <regentinvest.online> be transferred to the Complainant.

/John Swinson/
John Swinson
Sole Panelist
Date: September 24, 2024