The UDRP that Armor Bank filed against the domains ArmorBank.com and ArmorBank.org was met with an unfortunate decision.
Complainant, Armor Bank, is an Arkansas state bank. It is wholly owned by Big Creek Bancshares, Inc. (“Big Creek”), an Arkansas Corporation and the registrant with the USPTO of the mark ARMOR BANK.
Meanwhile, the Respondent showcased their use of the domain names that date back to 2014 with an Archive.org capture offering the .com domain “seeking partnership” as the domain is a “perfect name for a new financial institution.”
The Complainant’s registration of the ARMOR BANK took place in 2018 and in this case the domains and their use are senior to the mark. The Forum panelist concluded that this is a case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:
Big Creek had no established reputation in its then non-existent mark when Respondent registered the armorbank.com domain name. In each of the cases cited by Complainant in support of its contention that using a disputed domain to misrepresent an affiliation with Complainant to attract and confuse Complainant’s customers is “indicative of bad faith registration and use” under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), the trademark rights of the complainants arose prior to the registration of the disputed domain names. The Panel considers that Complainant, represented by Counsel, must have known that its Complaint should fail to establish bad faith registration of the armorbank.com domain name.
The armorbank.org domain name was registered after Big Creek registered its mark. It resolves to Respondent’s website at “www.armorbank.com”, which Complainant contends to be use in bad faith. Under these circumstances the Panel is not satisfied that Complainant should have known that its Complaint would fail to establish bad faith registration of the armorbank.org domain name.
The Panel therefore finds that, in relation to the armorbank.com domain name, the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.
Final decision: Deny the transfer of ArmorBank.com and ArmorBank.org, with a finding of RDNH in the ArmorBank.com case.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.Armor Bank v. Christopher Cashak
Claim Number: FA2411002123653
PARTIES
Complainant is Armor Bank (“Complainant”), represented by Mark R. Holland of Mitchell Williams Selig Gates & Woodyard, PLLC, Arkansas, USA. Respondent is Christopher Cashak (“Respondent”), Arizona, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are armorbank.com and armorbank.org, registered with Epik LLC.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 6, 2024. Forum received payment on November 6, 2024.
On November 6, 2024, Epik LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the armorbank.com and armorbank.org domain names are registered with Epik LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Epik LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Epik LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On November 8, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 28, 2024 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@armorbank.com, postmaster@armorbank.org. Also on November 8, 2024, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Following requests from Respondent pursuant to UDRP Rules 5(b) and 5(e) for extensions of time, the latter explaining that extenuating circumstances warranted an extension of 20 days, Forum set deadlines of December 3 and December 23, 2024 respectively by which Respondent could file a Response. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on December 23, 2024.
On December 23, 2024, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist.
Preliminary Issue: IDENTITY OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, Christopher Cashak, submits that the armorbank.com and armorbank.org domain names were registered and are used by World Domination Holdings LLC., an Arizona limited liability company, of which Respondent is the statutory agent. World Domination Holdings LLC claims common law rights to the ARMOR BANK trade and/or service mark. As such, Respondent asks the Panel to amend the title and Respondent information to include “World Domination Holdings LLC”.
The Panel accepts that both domain names were registered in the name of Respondent, acting on behalf of and as agent for World Domination Holdings LLC. The Panel is not disposed to amend the title and Respondent information but will take into account Respondent’s submissions regarding that company.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant, Armor Bank, is an Arkansas state bank. It is wholly owned by Big Creek Bancshares, Inc. (“Big Creek”), an Arkansas Corporation and the registrant with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) of the mark ARMOR BANK. Complainant is solely owned by and is the exclusive licensee for Big Creek and holds the right to use the ARMOR BANK trademark under a trademark license agreement.
The armorbank.com and armorbank.org domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the ARMOR BANK trademark.
Respondent (the domain-name holder) should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names.
Upon information and belief, Respondent does not use and has not made preparations to use the armorbank.com and armorbank.org domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The domain names provide no online or in-person banking or financial services and have no actual commercial use related to such services. The armorbank.com domain name specifically has not done so for over 10 years since the website’s inception.
The domain names do not provide legitimate offerings of bona fide commercial or noncommercial services. Rather, they present misleading affiliations with Complainant, such as “sponsored listings” of bank locations in Arkansas that aim to cleverly mislead, attract, and divert customers and potential customers of Complainant. In addition, they appear to also be engaging in “cash management” phishing schemes designed to improperly solicit the sensitive personal banking information of Complainant’s customers.
Using a domain name to confuse Internet users into believing that an affiliation exists between Respondent and Complainant, with the intention to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to Respondent’s website, is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
With regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), upon information and belief, Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use the ARMOR BANK trademark, is not commonly known as “Armor Bank,” “armorbank.com,” or “armorbank.org,” and has not established rights or legitimate interest in the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The domain names should be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith.
Upon information and belief, Respondent improperly uses the ARMOR BANK trademark licensed to Complainant for the purpose of misrepresenting the armorbank.com and armorbank.org domain names as affiliated with Complainant, or otherwise as the online source of Complainant’s banking and financial services, in order to attract and confuse Complainant’s customers, to improperly solicit their sensitive personal information, and to seek illegitimate commercial and noncommercial gains, consistent with Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
For instance, the armorbank.com domain name includes “sponsored listings” of banking locations in Arkansas, the state where Complainant offers legitimate banking and financial services through its online and service locations as “Armor Bank”. However, none of the “sponsored listings” link to any banking or financial services offered by Complainant, or anyone for that matter. By misrepresenting the domain names as affiliated with Complainant, Respondent encourages confusion from Internet users who are seeking legitimate banking or financial services from banks in Arkansas that operate under the name “Armor Bank,” which exactly describes Complainant’s existing and potential customers.
In addition, Respondent appears to be using the armorbank.com and armorbank.org domain names to improperly solicit sensitive personal information from Complainant’s customers rather than to offer legitimate goods and services. For instance, the armorbank.com domain homepage provides a prominently featured “contact us” option that allows online users to submit inquiries to “Armor Bank.” However, when a customer of Complainant was misled into submitting a Customer Service inquiry to Respondent that was intended for Complainant, the customer received a phishing email from “Cash Management info@armorbank.com” directing the customer to “Please use the following code to login. 17805019.” Respondent’s deceptive tactics are not in good faith but are aimed at attracting and creating confusion for Complainant’s customers for potentially fraudulent purposes.
Moreover, Respondent sent harassing emails to shareholders of Big Creek, which licenses the ARMOR BANK trademark to Complainant. Respondent has used other platforms to harass Complainant and to create confusion as to who is the legitimate owner of ARMOR BANK. Respondent created a social media account on Twitter/X linked to the armorbank.com domain name for instance, to further confuse Complainant’s customers and Complainant had to take steps to remove the offending account.
Using a disputed domain to misrepresent an affiliation with Complainant to attract and confuse Complainant’s customers is “indicative of bad faith registration and use” under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”. See Nasdaq, Inc. v. Wang Chun Lei, FA2208002009200 (Forum Sept. 30, 2022; Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA0607000758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006); and Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA0101000096356 (Forum Feb. 5, 2001).
B. Respondent
The armorbank.com and armorbank.org domain names are used by World Domination Holdings LLC, which has common law rights to the ARMOR BANK trade and/or service mark.
JumpBlast LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, is an affiliate and licensee of World Domination Holdings LLC. JumpBlast LLC is licensed to use the ARMOR BANK mark by World Domination Holdings LLC. Respondent, Christopher Cashak, is the statutory agent for World Domination Holdings LLC and for JumpBlast LLC.
The armorbank.com domain name was registered by Respondent on November 19, 2013, as documented in the WHOIS database. Respondent has since maintained a continuous registration of that domain name. Respondent used the corresponding ARMOR BANK mark in a bona fide offering of goods or services soon after the domain name registration. The armorbank.com domain name resolved to a website using the ARMOR BANK mark in a bona fide offering of goods or services with an express statement of Respondent’s rights to the ARMOR BANK mark. The earliest capture of the website on the “Internet Archive Wayback Machine” is dated May 16, 2014.
The armorbank.com domain name currently resolves to a website using the ARMOR BANK mark with an express statement of Respondent’s rights to the mark displayed throughout the website. The mark was and is currently used by Respondent in promotion and marketing connected with the armorbank.com domain name, including on the Internet, Internet search engines and social media. The Google.com Internet search engine website reports “armorbank.com” was indexed more than 10 years ago.
Prior to Respondent’s registration of the armorbank.com domain name, Respondent conducted an extensive search for use of the “ARMOR BANK” name. The search included the USPTO database, Internet search engine database, and domain name registration database. Upon information and belief, no other party was using or had rights to the “ARMOR BANK” name on the date of Respondent’s registration of the armorbank.com domain name.
Respondent has first use, senior common law trademark rights to the ARMOR BANK mark. A Federal trademark registration, if valid, would not invalidate Respondent’s common law trademark rights. See “American Information Corporation d/b/a American Information Network v. American Infometrics, Inc.”, Forum, FA0105000097339: “Neither application for nor registration of a mark at the federal level wipes out the prior non-registered, common law rights of others. The non-registered rights of a senior user continue and are not trumped by the later federal registration of a junior user.”
As to legitimacy, a credible investment in a website was made around the time of the armorbank.com domain name registration. That domain name resolves to a website with a documented history, on multiple dates, in the “Internet Archive Wayback Machine”. The investment includes the website development as well as the expense for hosting the website on a public server. The website was modified, redesigned, and expanded from the original website available in 2013. It makes a bona fide offering of goods or services, including business development, intellectual property development, brand development, promotion/marketing, and lead generation. It includes a contact form and public email address for inquiries related to the bona fide offering of goods or services.
In November, 2013, as an element of promotion, marketing and advertising of its rights and interest in the ARMOR BANK mark, Respondent, through JumpBlast LLC, created an account on the then Twitter, now X website, with the user name “armorbank”, commonly referenced as “@armorbank”. The @armorbank Twitter account was used with the ARMOR BANK mark and was linked to the armorbank.com domain name, which resolves to Respondent’s website.
The armorbank.org domain name was registered by Respondent to protect Respondent’s rights and interest in the ARMOR BANK mark and the armorbank.com domain name. The armorbank.org domain name is in use, currently redirecting to the armorbank.com domain name, which resolves to Respondent’s website.
Short, English language, easy to remember “.com” top-level domain names are particularly desirable. The armorbank.com domain name is shorter than the carinsurance.com domain name which sold for $49.7 million, as well as the vacationrentals.com domain name which sold for $35 million. The root words of “ARMOR” and “BANK” are easy to remember. The name “Armor Bank” has powerful meaning and subtext that increases its commercial value.
The inherent commercial value of domain names, and especially “.com” top-level domain names, is evidence of Respondent having legitimate interests in respect to the armorbank.com and armorbank.org domain names.
Additionally, as part of promotion, there is a “directory” section of the website resolving from the armorbank.com domain name. The majority of locations listed are in areas where, upon information and belief, Complainant does not have a branch/office.
Respondent is commonly known by and associated with the armorbank.com and armorbank.org domain names through the resolving website, search engines and social media.
Respondent submitted a question to the artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT:
Question: “What domain name is Armor Bank commonly known by?” Response: “Armor Bank is commonly known by the domain name armorbank.com.”
ChatGPT has 300 million weekly active users according to Demandsage. This is additional evidence of the ARMOR BANK mark being commonly known by the domain name, as well as Respondent through the resolving website.
As to bad faith, the armorbank.com domain name was registered by Respondent more than 2 years, 10 months before Big Creek’s Federal trademark application, and more than 3 years, 4 months before the listed first use date. Complainant did not submit evidence proving this to be an “exceptional case” and did not submit evidence proving the “limited circumstances” listed in section 3.8.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 “).
Complainant did not provide evidence that Respondent solicited or demanded valuable consideration, in any amount, from Complainant or from a competitor of Complainant for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the armorbank.com and/or armorbank.org domain name registrations.
Complainant did not provide evidence that Complainant was a competitor with Respondent on November 19, 2013, the date of Respondent’s armorbank.com domain name registration.
The website resolving from the armorbank.com domain name is materially different from the website resolving from the armor.bank domain name. Upon information and belief, a likelihood of confusion does not exist.
Respondent asks for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking against Complainant.
FINDINGS
Complainant has failed to establish all the elements entitling it to relief.
DISCUSSION
Rule ¶ 15(a) instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
Policy ¶ 4(a) requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
It is beyond the scope of the Policy to determine issues of trademark validity, cancellation or infringement, which are appropriately addressed in court proceedings.
Identical and/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 3.0, section 1.7.
Complainant has shown that Big Creek is the registrant with the USPTO of the mark ARMOR BANK, Reg. No. 5,596,281, registered on October 30, 2018 for banking services and financial services, upon application filed on October 14, 2016, claiming first use and first use in commerce on April 13, 2017.
The dates of registration of the armorbank.com and armorbank.org domain names are irrelevant under this element.
The Panel finds Respondent’s armorbank.com and armorbank.org domain names to be virtually identical and confusingly similar to the ARMOR BANK mark, only differing by the omission of the space between the words. The inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429.
Complainant has provided no evidence that it holds the right to use the ARMOR BANK trademark under a trademark license agreement with Big Creek. Accordingly, the Panel is unable to find that Complainant has rights in the mark.
Complainant has failed to establish this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Policy ¶ 4(c) sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), i.e.
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent 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) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant’s assertions and supporting screenshots of the website to which the domain names currently resolve are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that Respondent, as agent for World Domination Holdings LLC., does have rights or legitimate interests in the armorbank.com and armorbank.org domain names. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019).
The armorbank.com and armorbank.org domain names were registered by Respondent, as agent for World Domination Holdings LLC., respectively on November 19, 2013 and December 26, 2022. Both domain names resolve to the website at “www.armorbank.com”.
On May 16, 2014, that website (captured by the Internet Archive Wayback Machine – Response Exhibit D) stated:
“Armor Bank
Armor Bank is the perfect name for a new financial institution. The identifier was created by our branding experts. It embodies strength and security. These are qualities everyone demands in their financial providers. Armor Bank could support checking, savings, loans, mortgages, investments or other financial services.
We are seeking partners in the financial service industry to form a new entity with the Armor Bank brand. Serious prospects should contact us at this email: contact@armorbank.com
“Armor Bank” is a trade and/or service mark of World Domination Holdings LLC. All rights reserved world-wide. Any trade and/or service mark use without permission is expressly prohibited.”
This website content, several years prior to the first use of Complainant’s mark, satisfies the Panel that, before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, Respondent used the armorbank.com domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of services pursuant to Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.
The “www.armorbank.com” website currently displays the statement (Response Annex F):
“© 2024 JumpBlast LLC – This website is owned and operated by JumpBlast LLC – “Armor Bank” and “ArmorBank.com” are trade and/or service marks of World Domination Holdings LLC – All rights reserved world-wide – Any trade and/or service mark use without permission is expressly prohibited.”
Exhibit E to the Complaint shows a page from the “www.armorbank.com” website stating:
“In addition to ARMORBANK.COM, World Domination Holdings LLC secured ARMORBANK.ORG to protect its trademark. These are the two most popular top-level domains worldwide, according to Statista.”
The Panel accepts that, despite being registered after Big Creek acquired rights in its ARMOR BANK trademark, Respondent registered the armorbank.org domain name as a defensive measure to protect its claimed common law ARMOR BANK mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in respect of both of the armorbank.com and armorbank.org domain names.
Complainant has failed to establish this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) sets out the conjunctive requirement that Complainant establish both that Respondent has registered the domain names in bad faith and that Respondent is using the domain names in bad faith.
Policy ¶ 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of ¶ 4(a)(iii). Complainant relies on Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv):
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
As noted above, Big Creek’s mark ARMOR BANK, Reg. No. 5,596,281, was registered on October 30, 2018 upon application filed on October 14, 2016, claiming first use and first use in commerce on April 13, 2017.
The armorbank.com domain name was registered on November 19, 2013, more than three years prior to the claimed first use of Big Creek’s mark. The armorbank.org domain name was registered on December 26, 2022. It resolves to the website at “www.armorbank.com”.
As stated in “UDRP Perspectives on recent jurisprudence, vol.4.30” at paragraph 3.2:
“UDRP Panels routinely determine that a domain name could not have been registered in bad faith when the registration pre-dates a trademark right. It is axiomatic that a Respondent could not have registered a domain name in bad faith before a Complainant acquired rights in the corresponding trademark.
For bad faith registration to have occurred, the trademark must predate the Respondent’s domain name registration. There is one limited exception to the general rule, namely where the domain name was registered because of “nascent” trademark rights, such as where the Respondent registered the domain name as a result of the Complainant’s announcement of a new corporate name or where the Respondent registered the domain name because of the Complainant’s trademark application.”
There is no evidence before the Panel that Respondent could have known of any nascent rights in Big Creek’s ARMOR BANK mark when Respondent registered the armorbank.com domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the armorbank.com domain name could not have been registered in bad faith.
By the time the armorbank.org domain name was registered on December 26, 2022, Big Creek had registered its ARMOR BANK mark. That domain name resolves to the “www.armorbank.com” website.
As noted above in relation to the second element, the Panel accepts that the armorbank.org domain name was registered in order to protect World Domination Holdings LLC’s claimed common law rights in the ARMOR BANK mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the armorbank.org domain name was not registered in bad faith, despite being registered after Big Creek had registered its ARMOR BANK mark.
Complainant contends that using a disputed domain to misrepresent an affiliation with Complainant to attract and confuse Complainant’s customers is “indicative of bad faith registration and use” under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”, citing Nasdaq, Inc. v. Wang Chun Lei, FA2208002009200 (Forum Sept. 30, 2022, Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA0607000758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006) and Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA0101000096356 (Forum Feb. 5, 2001). However, in each of those cases the trademark rights of the complainant arose prior to the registration of the disputed domain names.
In Viz Communications, Inc., v. Redsun dba www.animerica.com and David Penava, WIPO Case No. D2000-0905 (December 22, 2000) the panel rejected the proposition that bad faith use can transform prior good faith registration into bad faith registration, citing Passion Group Inc. v. Usearch Inc. (AF 0250):
“The panel is assisted in forming a view as to how to interpret paragraphs 4(a)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) by the contrast between the introductory words of paragraph 4(c): “any of the following circumstances shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests” and the introductory words of paragraph 4(b): “the following circumstances shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith”.
“This contrasting language indicates that use of the kind described in 4(b)(iv) is to be taken as evidence of bad faith registration as well as evidence of bad faith use. But this evidence is not necessarily conclusive. Furthermore, the panel is not required to assign substantial weight to evidence of constructive bad faith registration furnished by paragraph 4(b)(iv), and the panel may have regard to other evidence in determining whether the requirements of 4(a)(iii) have been proved.
“This approach accords with the Policy by enabling a finding of bad faith registration to be made where bad faith use within 4(b)(iv) is the only evidence tending to show the purpose for which the domain name was registered. Where, however, there is other relevant evidence, such as evidence that the domain name was registered for a permissible purpose, it must be weighed against any evidence of bad faith registration constituted by evidence of bad faith use within 4(b)(iv). It is difficult to imagine circumstances in which, under this approach, subsequent bad faith use within 4(b)(iv) would suffice to prove that a domain name was originally registered in bad faith.”
Accordingly, even assuming that the armorbank.com and armorbank.org domain names are currently being used in bad faith, the Panel is not persuaded that either of them was registered in bad faith.
Complainant has failed to establish this element.
Reverse domain name hijacking
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (“RDNH”) is defined in Rule 1 as “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name”. Rule 15(e) provides, in part:
“If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.”
Big Creek had no established reputation in its then non-existent mark when Respondent registered the armorbank.com domain name. In each of the cases cited by Complainant in support of its contention that using a disputed domain to misrepresent an affiliation with Complainant to attract and confuse Complainant’s customers is “indicative of bad faith registration and use” under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), the trademark rights of the complainants arose prior to the registration of the disputed domain names. The Panel considers that Complainant, represented by Counsel, must have known that its Complaint should fail to establish bad faith registration of the armorbank.com domain name.
The armorbank.org domain name was registered after Big Creek registered its mark. It resolves to Respondent’s website at “www.armorbank.com”, which Complainant contends to be use in bad faith. Under these circumstances the Panel is not satisfied that Complainant should have known that its Complaint would fail to establish bad faith registration of the armorbank.org domain name.
The Panel therefore finds that, in relation to the armorbank.com domain name, the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.
DECISION
Complainant having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the armorbank.com and armorbank.org domain names REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: December 27, 2024
