Complaint Citigroup in Rem
Complaint Citigroup in Rem
Plaintiff,
<citibankaccountonline.com>, <citibankautofinance.com>, p
<citibankbanamex.com>, <citibankcreditcardonline.com>,
<citibankmerchantservices.com>, <citibankonlime.com>,
<citibankpayment.com>, <citibankthankyouxom>,
<citicardmember.com>, <citidank.com>,
<citifinancialquto.com>, <citiflnancialservicesinc.com>,
<citifininancialauto.com>, <citigroupdesktop.com>,
<citimortgqge.com>, <citiplatinumselectmastercard.com>,
<citisears.com>, <citifinacial.net>, <citigoup.net>,
<citiflnance.com>, <miciti.com>, and
<citibankpayment.com>,
Defendants. ^
Plaintiff Citigroup Inc. ("Citigroup"), by and through its undersigned counsel, brings its
Domain Names") seeking relief pursuant to the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(the"ACPA").
I. SUMMARY OF ACTION
1. This is an action brought pursuant to the in rem provisions of the ACPA. Plaintiff
is the owner of the CITI and CITIBANK trademarks (the "CITI Marks") and is the leading
provider of financial services in the United States and throughout the world. Citigroup, which is
based in New York, operates its Internet banking through such domain names as <citi.com>,
<citibank.com>, and <citibankonline.com>. Plaintiff has spent substantial sums advertising the
CITI Marks. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs rights to the CITI Marks, the Infringing Domain Names
were registered through a Indian registrar's privacy service that masks the identity of the party or
parties responsible for registering the Infringing Domain Names. Plaintiffs attempts to find the
party or parties responsible for registering the Infringing Domain Names have thus been
frustrated.
Plaintiffs CITI Marks, are all registered through Private Whois Escrow Domains Private
Limited ("Private Whois") and all have the same contact email address. True and correct copies
of the WHOIS records for the Infringing Domain Names are attached hereto as Group Exhibit
1. As indicated by their <xom> and <net> extensions, the Infringing Domain names all reside
with VeriSign, Inc., which is responsible for maintaining the <.com> and <.net> registries.
HI. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This Court has in rent jurisdiction over the Infringing Domain Name under 15
U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(C) because VeriSign Inc., which maintains the <.com> and <.net> registries
in which the Infringing Domain Names reside, is located in this judicial district in Dulles,
5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Lanham Act pursuant to 15
U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a) and 1338(b). In addition, this Court has subject
matter jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2) based on Plaintiffs inability to identify the
6. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (a) and 15
U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(C) because the res, i.e., the Infringing Domain Names, are each located
extensive family of famous trademarks and service marks comprised of or featuring the CITI
Marks.
8. Among other applications and registrations, the mark CITI, U.S. Reg. No.
1,181,467 (incontestable status), was registered on December 8, 1981 for "financial services
including consumer and commercial lending, credit card services, real estate services, investment
and advisory services and providing venture capital to others." A true and correct copy of the
Trademark Registration Record as maintained by the United States Patent and Trademark Office
for the CITI mark, U.S. Registration Number 1,181,467, is attached as Exhibit 2.
9. Likewise, the mark CITIBANK, U.S. Reg. No. 691,815 (incontestable status),
was registered on January 19, 1960 for "banking services," and has been in continual use since
February 2, 1959. A true and correct copy of the Trademark Registration Record as maintained
by the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the CITIBANK mark, U.S. Registration
10. In addition to rights in the United States, the CITI Marks are applied for or
11. The CITI Marks represent to the worldwide consuming public the goods and
12. Plaintiff Citigroup has made extensive use of the CITI Marks by providing its
services throughout the United States and around the world, and due to the extensive use and
registration of the CITI Marks, the CITI Marks have become famous both in the United States
and abroad.
13. Subsequent to Plaintiffs use or registration of the CITI Marks in the United
States, and without Plaintiffs consent or the sanction of any court of law, the Infringing Domain
Names were registered with Private Whois. The Infringing Domain Names all list the same
contact email address (hosted by Private Whois), which evidences that a single person or entity is
14. The Infringing Domain Names are top level domain names ending in either
<.com> or <.net>, and, as such, they are maintained by the Verisign, Inc. <.com> and <.net>
CITI mark in its entirety, and many of the Infringing Domain Names include Plaintiffs famous
and protectable CITIBANK mark in its entirety. Thus, the Infringing Domain Names are all
confusingly similar to, and dilutive of, the famous CITI Marks and they therefore violate
Plaintiffs exclusive trademark and service mark rights in the CITI Marks in the United States
and abroad.
COUNT I
In Rent Action Under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
(15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2))
16. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-15 as if fully set
forth herein.
17. As set forth above, and under Section 1125(d)(2)(A)(i), the Infringing Domain
Names violate Plaintiffs rights in connection with the CITI Marks because the Infringing
Domain Names are confusingly similar to, and dilutive of, Plaintiffs famous CITI Marks.
18. The continued registration and use of the Infringing Domain Names constitutes a
violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2), which protects the owner of U.S. trademarks and prohibits
the registration of Internet domain names that are confusingly similar to any trademark, or
19. Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, irreparable harm to its reputation
and goodwill as a result of the registration and ongoing use of the Infringing Domain Names.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Citigroup Inc. respectfully requests that this Court enter an
order for Plaintiff and against the Infringing Domain Names as follows:
iii. Plaintiff be awarded such other and further relief as this Court may deem just.
Respectfully submitted,
CITIGROUP INC.