Zions Bancorporation, N.A. v “Fake contact information”

WIPO Case No. D2024-1297

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Zions Bancorporation, N.A. v. “Fake contact information”

Case No. D2024-1297

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Zions Bancorporation, N.A., United States of America (hereinafter “United States,”) represented by TechLaw Ventures, PLLC, United States.

Respondent is “Fake contact information”, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <vectra-bank.digital> (hereinafter the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 26, 2024. On March 27, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On March 28, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing that the registrant provided fake contact information but disclosing an email address used for purposes of registration of the Disputed Domain Name, which differed from the named Respondent (PrivacyGuardian.org llc) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on April 3, 2024, providing the registrant’s contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on April 3, 2024.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 4, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 24, 2024. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 26, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on May 7, 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 7.

4. Factual Background

Complainant has been using VECTRA (hereinafter the “Mark”) as a service mark for banking in United States since at least as early as 1989. It owns United States Trademark Registration Nos.1604952 for VECTRA (registered on July 3, 1990) and 2361580 for VECTRA BANK (registered on June 27, 2000).

Since March 18, 1996, Complainant or its affiliates have been the registrant of the domain name

<vectrabank.com>, where Complainant advertises and offers its banking services.

Using false contact information, Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on March 8, 2024.

There is no active website associated with the Disputed Domain Name.

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.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

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
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 Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The Panel finds the Mark is identical to the Disputed Domain Name for the purposes of the Policy. space between “Vectra” and “Bank” cannot be reflected in the Disputed Domain Name, as spaces are not allowed in the Domain Name System.

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 Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a Disputed Domain Name.

page 3

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 Respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to 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 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 Complainant has established a prima facie case that	Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized 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.
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.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. The Panel finds that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Mark is distinctive, and Respondent has made only a trivial variation. See, WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 3.2.2. There is no benign
explanation for the registration. Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 3.1.4. The Panel finds that Respondent
deliberately targeted Complainant’s Mark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name.
Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the non-use of the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding. Although panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, and (iii) Respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.
Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of Complainant’s trademark, the composition of the Disputed Domain Name, and, in particular, Respondent’s giving fake contact information when registering the Disputed Domain Name. For these reasons, the Panel finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.
The Panel finds that Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

page 4

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 <vectra-bank.digital> be transferred to Complainant.

/Lawrence K. Nodine/
Lawrence K. Nodine
Sole Panelist
Date: May 21, 2024