comerica webbanking login

This article was all about the Comerica bank login and Registration procedure. you may find comerica bank near me or pay your credit card. Login with CBD app. Don't miss out. The best experience is on the app. Use the app. Continue to online banking continue. This post will inform Comerica Bank account holders the steps to Setup for New Customers Online Banking process via comerica.com, how to log.
comerica webbanking login

Comerica webbanking login -

Comerica

Visit site

Comerica Incorporated (NYSE: CMA) is a financial services company headquartered in Dallas Texas and strategically aligned by three business segments: The Business Bank The Retail Bank and Wealth Management. Comerica focuses on relationships and helping people and businesses be successful.

Personal Banking & Financial Services

Recent Posts

Comerica Incorporated is an American financial services company founded in Detroit Michigan and currently headquartered in Dallas Texas, in addition to Michigan and Texas, it has retail banking operations in Arizona California and Florida and select business operations in several other US states as well as in Canada and Mexico.

It is the 22nd largest US financial holding company with sixty nine point three billion dollars in total assets, forty eight point two billion dollars in total loans and fifty seven billion dollars in total deposits as of March 31st 2015, it is the largest US commercial bank headquartered in Texas.

comerica-bank-online-banking-login

The company’s operating units include the business bank, the retail bank and wealth management employing nearly 9,000 people, its major operations are located in Detroit Livonia Auburn Hills Michigan, Dallas Ralph Babb is the chairman of the board of directors and chief executive officer Karen Parkhill is the chief financial officer.

The company was founded in Detroit by Ellen Farnsworth in 18-49 as the Detroit savings fund Institute its name changed to the Detroit Savings Bank in 1871 and to the Detroit bank in 1936 being one of the few area banks to survive the Great Depression in 1956.

The company merged with Birmingham National Bank ferndale National Bank and Detroit warbeck bank and trust company to form the Detroit bank and trust company in 1971, it formed a holding company, Detroit bank corporation, the current name was adopted in 1982.

Comerica Bank Online Registration Guide

In 1982, the company entered the Florida market, in 1983, it acquired its hometown rival bank of the Commonwealth, it entered the Texas market in 1988 when it acquired grand bank shares added the California market in 1991 when it purchased Plaza commerce bank opened in Bank shares in 1992, it merged with another large detroit-based Bank manufacturers national corporation, both banks were approximately the same size in assets and employees.

The merged bank announced its headquarters would be in the newly constructed Comerica tower at Detroit center in downtown Detroit in 1993, Comerica had previously maintained offices in the Detroit Savings Bank building and Comerica tower while manufacturers bank occupied space in tower 200 of renaissance center.

In 1996, the company sold its Illinois operation which it acquired as part of its merger with manufacturers to la Sol bank, in 2000, the bank sold its credit card division to MBNA, in 2001, it acquired Imperial Bank of California which also had branches in Arizona, in 1998, the company purchased the naming rights to the baseball stadium in downtown Detroit home to the Detroit Tigers of Major League Baseball.

It is to pay 66 million dollars over a period of 30 years for the naming rights to Comerica Park in October two thousand to Comerica incorporated announced to restate its second-quarter earnings to account for a 213 million dollars charge to cover climbing loan losses and a decline in the value of its munda capital management unit.

Comerica bank login Process

On March six 2007, the company announced its decision to relocate its corporate headquarters to Dallas in order to move closer to its customer base in the Sun Belt, in August, the company announced that its selected 1717 Main Street in downtown Dallas the company executives began moving into 1717 Main Street in November two thousand seven, the building has been renamed Comerica bank tower.

In January 2008, the company was selected by the US Department of the Treasury as the financial agent for its direct express debit card program, on January 18 2011, it announced the acquisition of Houston-based sterling bank for 1.0 three billion dollars strengthening Kimura cos presence in the Lone Star State, the acquisition virtually tripled its market share in Houston provided at entry into the San Antonio and caryville regions and complemented its banking center network and Dallas-fort worth.

In August 2011, the company consolidated its Detroit operations into the 411 building vacating one Detroit center, the 411 building is the former headquarters of manufacturers bank, in 2014, Comerica provided more than 8.5 million dollars to not-for-profit organizations in its markets, its employees raised more than 2.2 million dollars for the United Way and black United fund and donated their personal time with more than 73,000 hours spent helping to make a positive difference in the communities.

Comerica Bank Online Payment

It serves partnership with MasterCard Comerica Bank MasterCard and the US Treasury Department teamed up in 2008 to create the direct express debit master card, prepaid debit card, the federal government uses the express debit product to issue electronic payments to people who do not have bank accounts, who are often referred to collectively as the euro in bank head.

Comerica bank is the issuing bank for the debit card, you can also see Comerica bank building, Comerica bank challenger, Comerica bank new year’s parade list of banks in the America’s list of companies, in Dallas list of Michigan companies references external links Comerica official website, Comerica online newsroom, Comerica senior leadership team.

Posted in Comerica Bank LoginИсточник: https://icloudlogin.co/comerica-bank-login/

web banking comerica login

Searching for web banking comerica login? Use official links below to sign-in to your account.

If there are any problems with web banking comerica login, check if password and username is written correctly. Also, you can contact with customer support and ask them for help. If you don't remember you personal data, use button "Forgot Password". If you don't have an account yet, please create a new one by clicking sign up button/link.

Home Comerica

Visit site

Comerica offers a wide range of personal banking and financial services including checking and savings accounts web and mobile banking and credit cards.

Personal Banking Account Services

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Comerica Bank v. Tomasz Szczesniak

Case No. D2014-0865

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Comerica Bank, of Dallas, Texas, United States of America, represented by Bodman PLC, United States of America.

The Respondent is Tomasz Szczesniak, of Warsaw, Poland, self-represented.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <comerica-web-banking.com> is registered with Key-Systems GmbH dba domaindiscount24.com (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 23, 2014. On May 23, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 26, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Polish, the Complainant filed an email with arguments as to why the proceeding should be in English on June 5, 2014. A further email was received from the Complainant on this issue on June 16, 2014.

The Center verified that the Complaint with the request that English be the language of the proceedings 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 16, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 6, 2014. The Response was filed with the Center on July 5, 2014.

The Center appointed Louis-Bernard Buchman as the sole panelist in this matter on July 22, 2014. 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

The Complainant is a financial services company headquartered in Dallas, Texas, United States. In addition to Texas, the Complainant has bank locations in Arizona, California, Florida, and Michigan, United States as well as in Canada and Mexico. The Complainant is the owner of many trademarks and service marks in the United States (together "the Marks"), including:

- COMERICA, a service mark, Registration No. 1,251,846 for use in "banking services", registered on September 20, 1983, with first use in commerce on February 26, 1982.

- COMERICA, a service mark and Design, Registration No. 1,776,041 for use in "banking services", registered on June 8, 1993, with first use in commerce on June 18, 1992.

In addition, the Complainant is the owner of the service mark COMERICA WEB BANKING, United States Trademark Regis tration No. 3,950,474, registered on April 26, 2011.

The Complainant is also the registrant of, among others, the domain names <comerica.com>, <comerica.net>, <comerica.org> and <webbanking.comerica.com>, the latter being the Complainant's official log-in page for web banking.

The disputed domain name <comerica-web-banking.com> was created on May 4, 2012 and resolves to a website purportedly providing information about the Complainant's web banking services and displaying sponsored links to the Complainant's competitors.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

(i) The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name reproduces the Marks in which the Complainant has rights, and is confusingly similar to the Marks insofar as the disputed domain name, <comerica-web-banking.com>, contains the distinctive element COMERICA in its entirety. The Complainant also asserts that the addition of the non-distinctive words "web" and "banking" does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name <comerica-web-banking.com> from the Marks and only adds to the confusion.

(ii) The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Complainant contends that it never licensed or in any way authorized the Respondent to register or use the Marks in any manner. The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name and has never acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the disputed domain name.

(iii) The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith and has never used, or made preparations to use, the disputed domain name or any name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name but instead is using the disputed domain name in connection with a website that displays sponsored links.

(iv) The Complainant submits that by registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent sought to misleadingly divert consumers for commercial gain. Furthermore, the Complainant submits that the Respondent acted in bad faith because the Marks being well-known, it knew or should have known about the Complainant's rights in and to the Marks when registering the disputed domain name.

(v) Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent acted in bad faith because the Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name obviously has no other intention than to misappropriate or tarnish the Complainant's Marks.

(vi) The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

On July 5, 2014, the Respondent sent a response to the Center, consenting to the remedy requested by the Complainant, and contending that because he did not renew the registration of the disputed domain name on May 3, 2014 with the "Aftermarket.pl" service, he is no longer the holder of the disputed domain name and is unable to transfer it by himself.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Procedural Aspects

(i) Language of the Proceeding

Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that "Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding".

The Registrar confirmed that the language of the registration agreement of the disputed domain name is Polish.

The Complainant specifically requested in its emails to the Center on June 5 and 16, 2014 that the proceeding takes place in the English language under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, quoting several UDRP panel decisions which held that in deciding to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, panels may exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties' ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs. See Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl, WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004, and Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, WIPO Case No. D2006-0432.

Considering the request of the Complainant, as well as the fact that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves appears entirely in the English language and that no detriment or burden shall be created for the Respondent since his Response is in the English language, the Panel determines that, pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the language of the proceeding is English.

(ii) Failure to rebut and consent to the requested remedy

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, it is the Complainant's burden to establish that all three of the required criteria for a transfer or cancellation of the disputed domain name have been met.

In this case, the Panel finds that in his Response, the Respondent failed to rebut any of the reasonable factual assertions that are made and supported by evidence submitted by the Complainant. In particular, the Respondent has failed to offer the Panel any of the types of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy from which the Panel might conclude that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, such as making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

Moreover, by expressly consenting to the remedy requested by the Complainant, without objecting to the Complainant's arguments that the Respondent has acted in bad faith, an inference may be drawn that such arguments are accepted by the Respondent.

B. Requirements of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy

(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar

In comparing the Marks with the disputed domain name <comerica-web-banking.com>, it is evident that the latter consists solely of the Marks, followed by the descriptive words "web" and "banking".

The addition of generic or descriptive terms does not serve to distinguish a domain name from registered marks. See Banconsumer Service, Inc. v. Mary Langthorne, Financial Advisor, WIPO Case No. D2001-1367; Royal Bank of Canada v. RBC Bank, WIPO Case No. D2002-0672; and Allianz AG v. Marian Dinu, WIPO Case No. D2006-0318.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <comerica-web-banking.com> is confusingly similar to the Marks, which it incorporates in their entirety.

Thus, the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

(ii) Rights or Legitimate Interests

Although a complainant bears the ultimate burden of establishing all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, UDRP panels have recognized that with regard to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative proposition, requiring information that is primarily if not exclusively within the knowledge of a respondent.

Thus, the consensus view of UDRP panels is that paragraph 4(c) of the Policy shifts the burden of production of evidence to the respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in a domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing, as the Panel believes the Complainant has made in this case. See Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.

As previously noted, the Respondent offered no reason for selecting the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or a corresponding name or uses a corresponding name in a business.

The website associated with the disputed domain name displays a number of sponsored links to various websites unrelated to the Complainant.

No information is provided on what rights or legitimate interests the Respondent may have in the disputed domain name. The "About Us" section of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, merely states that "The website is not connected or related to Comerica Bank in any way".

To counter any notion that the Respondent has such rights or legitimate interests, the Complainant has argued that the Respondent: (i) has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; (ii) has no connection with or authorization from the Complainant; and (iii) is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

In the circumstances, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy with respect to the disputed domain name.

(iii) Registered and Used in Bad Faith

As noted above, the Respondent has failed to provide any exculpatory information or persuasive reasoning that might have led the Panel to question the Complainant's arguments that the Respondent acted in bad faith by creating confusion to the detriment of the Complainant by registering the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Marks.

It is established in prior UDRP decisions that the registration of a domain name confusingly similar to a famous trademark by any entity that has no relationship to that trademark may be, in certain circumstances, sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Pfizer Inc. v. NA, WIPO Case No. D2005-0072; AT&T Corp. v. John Zuccarini d/b/a Music Wave and RaveClub Berlin, WIPO Case No. D2002-0440; America Online, Inc. v. Anson Chan, WIPO Case No. D2001-0004; Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., WIPO Case No. D2000-0163; and Research In Motion Limited v. Dustin Picov, WIPO Case No. D2001-0492.

As also recognized in Comerica Bank v. Rodica Ilea, WIPO Case No. D2013-1861 and in Comerica Bank v. Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd / Above.com Domain Privacy, WIPO Case No. D2014-0735, the Panel considers the Marks to be well known.

Thus, it is highly unlikely that the Respondent chose to register the disputed domain name randomly with no knowledge of the Marks. See Barney's Inc. v. BNY Bulletin Board, WIPO Case No. D2000-0059; Kate Spade, LLC v. Darmstadter Designs, WIPO Case No. D2001-1384 citing Cellular One Group v. PaulBrien, WIPO Case No. D2000-0028; and SembCorp Industries Limited v. Hu Huan Xin,WIPO Case No. D2001-1092.

Where the Respondent knew or should have known of a trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name, such conduct may also demonstrate bad faith. See Weetabix Limited v. Mr. J. Clarke, WIPO Case No. D2001-0775.

In addition, the Panel notes that many UDRP panels have held that bad faith use of a domain name by a respondent may also result from the fact its good faith use is in no way plausible (see Audi AG v. Hans Wolf, WIPO Case No. D2001-0148), considering the specificity of the activity.

The Complainant has also argued and provided evidence that the Respondent is not making a bona fide use of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name is used to divert Internet users for commercial gain.

The Panel notes that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is likely to have directly or indirectly generated revenue for the Respondent or whoever is responsible for the uploading of third party links. The fact that it might not be the Respondent who has derived the gain is irrelevant. See Villeroy & Boch AG v. Mario Pingerna, WIPO Case No. D2007-1912.

Moreover, despite the Respondent's contention that the Registrar's reseller "Aftermaket.pl" considers the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name as expired, the Respondent has been confirmed by the Registrar as the registered holder of the disputed domain name (the Registrar furthermore confirmed that the disputed domain name expires on May 4, 2015), and it is well established that the mere passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate circumstances be evidence not only of bad faith registration, but also of bad faith use. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corporation, WIPO Case No. D2000-1232; and Mary-Lynn Mondich and American Vintage Wine Biscuits, Inc. v. Shane Brown, doing business as Big Daddy's Antiques, WIPO Case No. D2000-0004; Alitalia–Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v. Colour Digital, WIPO Case No. D2000-1260.

Finally, some UDRP panels have held that in certain circumstances, persons who are registering domain names have an affirmative duty to abstain registering and using a domain name which is either identical or confusingly similar to a prior trademark held by others and that contravening that duty may constitute bad faith. See Policy, paragraph 2(b); Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, WIPO Case No. D2000-1397; Nuplex Industries Limited v. Nuplex, WIPO Case No. D2007-0078; Mobile Communication Service Inc. v. WebReg, RN, WIPO Case No. D2005-1304; BOUYGUES v. Chengzhang, Lu Ciagao, WIPO Case No. D2007-1325; Media General Communications, Inc. v. Rarenames, WebReg,WIPO Case No. D2006-0964; and mVisible Technologies, Inc. v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2007-1141.

The Panel finds that the evidence submitted supports a finding of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The Panel concludes in these circumstances that the Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith, and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is also satisfied in this case.

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 <comerica-web-banking.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Louis-Bernard Buchman
Sole Panelist
Date: August 5, 2014

Источник: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2014-0865
Comerica

Visit site

Comerica Web Banking allows you to bank whenever and wherever you need account access. Our secure online banking services comerica webbanking login you to log in to your accounts 24/7 1 anywhere you have Internet access. Enjoy the freedom to check on your finances anywhere life takes you with Comerica Web Banking.

Home Comerica

Visit site

Comerica provides companies of all sizes with an array of credit and non-credit financial products and services.

Sign In - NAPA CONNECT

Visit site

Enter your username and password to login. Warning: this page is not encrypted for secure communication. User names passwords and any other information will be sent in clear text.

Server Login - Comerica

Visit site

Log in. Username:: Forgot Username: Password:: Forgot Password

Источник: https://loginpublisher.com/post/web-banking-comerica-com-login

Comerica

Visit site

Comerica Incorporated (NYSE: CMA) is a financial services company headquartered in Dallas Texas and strategically aligned by three business segments: The Business Bank The Retail Bank and Wealth Management. Comerica focuses on relationships and helping people and businesses be successful.

Personal Banking & Financial Services Comerica

Visit site

Checking Accounts With Comerica's convenient and flexible checking solutions it's easy to find an account that works for you. Whether it's our Access Checking Account - a non-interest bearing account that comes with several flexible options to waive the flat monthly maintenance fee or our feature-rich Comerica Platinum Circle Checking ® Account - an interest-bearing high-balance .

Comerica Business Connect

Visit site

Login to Comerica Business Connect. User ID "User ID" must not be blank. PIN "Token Code" must not be blank. Sign In FAQ's. Caution Don't get spoofed. Please be aware of criminals that may be impersonating ("spoofing") a la perla taqueria san jose ca executive or other management or someone else you know to lure you into acting on bogus requests generally an .

Welcome to Online Banking

Visit site

System Unavailable The system is currently unavailable. Please contact customer service.

Commercial

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Comerica Bank v. Tomasz Szczesniak

Case No. D2014-0865

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Comerica Bank, of Dallas, Texas, United States of America, represented by Bodman PLC, United States of America.

The Respondent is Tomasz Szczesniak, of Warsaw, Poland, self-represented.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <comerica-web-banking.com> is registered with Key-Systems GmbH dba domaindiscount24.com (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 23, 2014. On May 23, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 26, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Polish, the Complainant filed an email with arguments as to why the proceeding should be in English on June 5, 2014. A further email was received from the Complainant on this issue on June 16, 2014.

The Center verified that the Complaint with the request that English be the language of the proceedings 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 16, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 6, 2014. The Response was filed with the Center on July 5, 2014.

The Center appointed Louis-Bernard Buchman as the sole panelist in this matter on July 22, 2014. 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

The Complainant is a financial services company headquartered in Dallas, Texas, United Is kettle corn popcorn good for you. In addition to Texas, the Complainant has bank locations in Arizona, California, Florida, and Michigan, United States as well as in Canada and Mexico. The Complainant is the owner of many trademarks and service marks in the United States (together "the Marks"), including:

- COMERICA, a service mark, Registration No. 1,251,846 for use in "banking services", registered on September 20, 1983, with first use in commerce on February 26, 1982.

- COMERICA, a service mark and Design, Registration No. 1,776,041 for use in "banking services", registered on June 8, 1993, with first use in commerce on June 18, 1992.

In addition, the Complainant is the owner of the service mark COMERICA Awds td com BANKING, United States Trademark Regis tration No. 3,950,474, registered on April 26, 2011.

The Complainant is also the registrant of, among others, the domain names <comerica.com>, <comerica.net>, <comerica.org> and <webbanking.comerica.com>, the latter being the Complainant's official log-in page for web banking.

The disputed domain name <comerica-web-banking.com> was created on May 4, 2012 and resolves to a website purportedly providing information about the Complainant's web banking services and displaying sponsored links to the Complainant's competitors.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

(i) The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name reproduces the Marks in which the Complainant has rights, and is confusingly similar to the Marks insofar as the disputed domain name, <comerica-web-banking.com>, contains the distinctive element COMERICA in its entirety. The Complainant also asserts that the addition of the non-distinctive words "web" and "banking" does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name <comerica-web-banking.com> from the Marks and only adds to the confusion.

(ii) The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Complainant contends that it never licensed or in any way authorized the Respondent to register or use the Marks in any manner. The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name and has never acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the disputed domain name.

(iii) The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith and has never used, or made preparations to use, the disputed domain name or any name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name but instead is using the disputed domain name in connection with a website that displays sponsored links.

(iv) The Complainant submits that by registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent sought to misleadingly divert consumers for commercial gain. Furthermore, the Complainant submits that the Respondent acted in bad faith because the Marks being well-known, it knew or should have known about the Complainant's rights in and to the Marks when registering the disputed domain name.

(v) Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent acted in bad faith because the Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name obviously has no other intention than to misappropriate or tarnish the Complainant's Marks.

(vi) The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

On July 5, 2014, the Respondent sent a response to the Center, consenting to the remedy requested by the Complainant, and contending that because he did not renew the registration of the disputed domain name on May 3, 2014 with the "Aftermarket.pl" service, he is no longer the holder of the disputed domain name and is unable to transfer it by himself.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Procedural Aspects

(i) Language of the Proceeding

Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that "Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, comerica webbanking login to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding".

The Registrar confirmed that the language of the registration agreement of the disputed domain name is Polish.

The Complainant specifically requested in its emails to the Center comerica webbanking login June 5 and 16, 2014 that the proceeding takes place in the English language under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, quoting several UDRP panel decisions which held that in deciding to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, panels may exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties' ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs. See Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl, WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004, and Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, WIPO Case No. D2006-0432.

Considering the request of the Complainant, as well as the fact that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves appears entirely in the English language and that no detriment or burden shall be created for the Respondent since his Response is in the English language, the Panel determines that, pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the language of the proceeding is English.

(ii) Failure to rebut and consent to the requested remedy

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, it is the Complainant's burden to establish that all three of the required criteria for a transfer or cancellation of the disputed domain name have been met.

In this case, the Panel finds that in his Response, the Respondent failed to rebut any of the reasonable factual assertions that are made and supported by evidence submitted by the Complainant. In particular, the Respondent has failed to offer the Panel any of the types of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy from which the Panel might conclude that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, such as making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

Moreover, by expressly consenting to the remedy requested by the Complainant, without objecting to the Complainant's arguments that the Respondent has acted in bad faith, an inference may be drawn that such arguments are accepted by the Respondent.

B. Requirements of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy

(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar

In comparing the Marks with the disputed domain name <comerica-web-banking.com>, it is evident that the latter consists solely of the Marks, followed by the descriptive words "web" and "banking".

The addition of generic or descriptive terms does not serve to distinguish a domain name from registered marks. See Banconsumer Service, Inc. v. Mary Langthorne, Financial Advisor, WIPO Case No. D2001-1367; Royal Bank of Canada v. RBC Bank, WIPO Case No. D2002-0672; and Allianz AG v. Marian Dinu, WIPO Case No. D2006-0318.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <comerica-web-banking.com> is confusingly similar to the Marks, which it incorporates in their entirety.

Thus, the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) comerica webbanking login the Policy.

(ii) Rights or Legitimate Interests

Although a complainant bears the ultimate burden of establishing all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, UDRP panels have recognized that with regard to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative proposition, requiring information that is primarily if not exclusively within the knowledge of a respondent.

Thus, the consensus view of UDRP panels is that paragraph 4(c) of the Policy shifts the burden of production of evidence to the respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in a domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing, as the Panel believes the Complainant has made in this case. See Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.

As previously noted, the Respondent offered no reason for selecting the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or a corresponding name or uses a corresponding name in a business.

The website associated with the disputed domain name displays a number of sponsored links to various websites unrelated to the Complainant.

No information is provided on what rights or legitimate interests the Respondent may have in the disputed domain name. The "About Us" section of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, merely states that "The website is not connected or related to Comerica Bank in any way".

To counter any notion that the Respondent has such rights or legitimate interests, the Complainant has argued that the Respondent: (i) comerica webbanking login no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; (ii) has no connection with or authorization from the Complainant; and (iii) is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

In the circumstances, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy with respect to the disputed domain name.

(iii) Registered and Used in Bad Faith

As noted above, the Respondent has failed to provide any exculpatory information or persuasive reasoning that might have led the Panel to question the Complainant's arguments that the Respondent acted in bad faith by creating confusion to the detriment of the Complainant by registering the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Marks.

It is established in prior UDRP decisions that the registration of a domain name confusingly similar to a famous trademark by any entity that has no relationship to that trademark may be, in certain circumstances, sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Pfizer Inc. v. NA, WIPO Case No. D2005-0072; AT&T Corp. v. John Zuccarini d/b/a Music Wave and RaveClub Berlin, Comerica webbanking login Case No. D2002-0440; America Online, Inc. v. Anson Chan, WIPO Case No. D2001-0004; Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., WIPO Case No. D2000-0163; and Research In Motion Limited v. Dustin Picov, WIPO Case No. D2001-0492.

As also recognized in Comerica Bank v. Rodica Ilea, WIPO Case No. D2013-1861 and in Comerica Bank v. Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd / Above.com Domain Privacy, WIPO Case No. D2014-0735, the Panel considers the Marks to be well known.

Thus, it is highly unlikely that the Respondent chose to register the disputed domain name randomly with no knowledge of the Marks. See Barney's Inc. v. BNY Bulletin Board, WIPO Case No. D2000-0059; Kate Spade, LLC v. Darmstadter Designs, WIPO Case No. D2001-1384 citing Cellular One Group v. PaulBrien, WIPO Case No. D2000-0028; and SembCorp Industries Limited v. Hu Huan Xin,WIPO Case No. D2001-1092.

Where the Respondent knew or should have known of a trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name, such conduct may also demonstrate bad faith. See Weetabix Limited v. Mr. J. Clarke, WIPO Case No. D2001-0775.

In addition, the Panel notes that many UDRP panels have held that bad faith use of a domain name by a respondent may also result from the fact its good faith use is in no way plausible (see Audi AG v. Hans Wolf, WIPO Case No. D2001-0148), considering the specificity of the activity.

The Complainant has also argued and provided evidence that the Respondent is not making a bona fide use of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name is used to divert Internet users for commercial gain.

The Panel notes that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is likely to have directly or indirectly generated revenue for the Respondent or whoever is responsible for the uploading of third party links. The fact that it might not be the Respondent who has derived the gain is irrelevant. See Villeroy & Boch AG v. Mario Pingerna, WIPO Case No. D2007-1912.

Moreover, despite the Respondent's contention that the Registrar's reseller "Aftermaket.pl" considers the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name as expired, the Respondent has been comerica webbanking login by the Registrar as the registered holder of the disputed domain name (the Registrar furthermore confirmed that the disputed domain name expires on May 4, 2015), and it is well established that the mere passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate circumstances be evidence not only of bad faith registration, but also of bad faith use. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corporation, WIPO Case No. D2000-1232; and Mary-Lynn Mondich and American Vintage Wine Biscuits, Inc. v. Shane Brown, doing business as Big Daddy's Antiques, WIPO Case No. D2000-0004; Alitalia–Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v. Colour Digital, WIPO Case No. D2000-1260.

Finally, some UDRP panels have held that in certain circumstances, persons who are registering domain names have an affirmative duty to abstain registering and using a domain name which is either identical or confusingly similar to a prior trademark held by others and that contravening that duty may constitute bad faith. See Policy, paragraph 2(b); Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, WIPO Case No. D2000-1397; Nuplex Industries Limited v. Nuplex, WIPO Case No. D2007-0078; Mobile Communication Service Inc. v. WebReg, RN, WIPO Case No. D2005-1304; BOUYGUES v. Chengzhang, Lu Ciagao, WIPO Case No. D2007-1325; Media General Communications, Inc. v. Rarenames, WebReg,WIPO Case No. D2006-0964; and mVisible Technologies, Inc. v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2007-1141.

The Panel finds that the evidence submitted supports a finding of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The Panel concludes in these circumstances that the Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith, and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is also satisfied in this case.

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 <comerica-web-banking.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Louis-Bernard Buchman
Sole Panelist
Date: August 5, 2014

Источник: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2014-0865

Recent Posts

Comerica Incorporated is an American financial services company founded in Detroit Michigan and currently headquartered in Dallas Texas, in addition to Michigan and Texas, it has retail banking operations in Arizona California and Florida and select business operations in several other US states as well as in Canada and Mexico.

It is the 22nd largest US financial holding company with sixty nine point three billion dollars in total assets, forty eight point two billion dollars in total loans and fifty seven billion dollars in total deposits as of March 31st 2015, it is the largest US commercial bank headquartered in Texas.

comerica-bank-online-banking-login

The company’s operating units include the business bank, the retail bank and wealth management employing nearly 9,000 people, its major operations are located in Detroit Livonia Auburn Hills Michigan, Dallas Ralph Babb is the chairman of the board of directors and chief executive officer Karen Parkhill is the chief financial officer.

The company was founded in Detroit by Ellen Farnsworth in 18-49 as the Detroit savings fund Institute its name changed to the Detroit Savings Bank in 1871 and to the Detroit bank in 1936 being one of the few area banks to survive the Great Depression in 1956.

The company merged with Birmingham National Bank ferndale National Bank and Detroit warbeck bank and trust company to form the Detroit bank and trust company in 1971, it formed a holding company, Detroit bank corporation, the current name was adopted in 1982.

Comerica Bank Online Registration Guide

In 1982, the company entered the Florida market, in 1983, it acquired its hometown rival bank of the Commonwealth, it entered the Texas market in 1988 when it acquired grand bank shares added the California market in 1991 when it purchased Plaza commerce bank opened in Bank shares in 1992, it merged with another large detroit-based Bank manufacturers national corporation, both banks were approximately the same size in assets and employees.

The merged bank announced its headquarters would be in the newly constructed Comerica tower at Detroit center in downtown Detroit in 1993, Comerica had previously maintained offices in the Detroit Savings Bank building and Comerica tower while manufacturers bank occupied space in tower 200 of renaissance center.

In 1996, the company sold its Illinois operation which it acquired as part of its merger with manufacturers to la Sol bank, in 2000, the bank sold its credit card division to MBNA, in 2001, it acquired Imperial Bank of California which also had branches in Arizona, in 1998, the company purchased the naming rights to the baseball stadium in downtown Detroit home to the Detroit Tigers of Major League Baseball.

It is to pay 66 million dollars over a period of 30 years for the naming rights to Comerica Park in October two thousand to Comerica incorporated announced to restate its second-quarter earnings to account for a 213 million dollars charge to cover climbing loan losses and a decline in the value of its munda capital management unit.

Comerica bank login Process

On March six 2007, the company announced its decision to relocate its corporate headquarters to Dallas in order to move closer to its customer base in the Sun Belt, in August, the company announced that its selected 1717 Main Street in downtown Dallas the company executives began moving into 1717 Main Street in November two thousand seven, the building has been renamed Comerica bank tower.

In January 2008, the company was selected by the US Department of the Treasury as the financial agent for its direct express debit card program, on January 18 2011, it announced the acquisition of Houston-based sterling bank for 1.0 three billion dollars strengthening Kimura cos presence in the Lone Star State, the acquisition virtually tripled its market share in Houston provided at entry into the Comerica webbanking login Antonio and caryville regions and complemented its banking center network and Dallas-fort worth.

In August 2011, the company consolidated its Detroit operations into the 411 building vacating one Detroit center, the 411 building is the former headquarters of manufacturers bank, in 2014, Comerica provided more than 8.5 million dollars to not-for-profit organizations in its markets, its employees raised more than 2.2 million dollars for the United Way and black United fund and donated their personal time with more than 73,000 hours bank of america online banking bill pay sign in helping to make a positive difference in the communities.

Comerica Bank Online Payment

It serves partnership with MasterCard Comerica Bank MasterCard and the US Treasury Department teamed up in 2008 to create the direct express debit master card, prepaid debit card, the federal government uses the express debit product to issue electronic payments to people who do not have bank accounts, who are often referred to collectively as the euro in bank head.

Comerica bank is the issuing bank for the debit card, you can also see Comerica bank building, Comerica bank challenger, Comerica bank new year’s parade list of banks in the America’s list of companies, in Dallas list of Michigan companies references external links Comerica official website, Comerica online newsroom, Comerica senior leadership team.

Posted in Comerica Bank LoginИсточник: https://icloudlogin.co/comerica-bank-login/
Comerica

Visit site

Comerica offers a wide range of personal banking and financial services including checking and savings accounts web and mobile banking and credit cards.

Personal Banking Account Services

: Comerica webbanking login

SMALL PERSONAL LOAN FROM BANK OF AMERICA
Comerica webbanking login
ARE MOVIE THEATERS OPEN TODAY NEAR ME
Comerica webbanking login
Best mortgage refinance rates in texas

You can watch a thematic video

Comerica Bank Login Sign In - Comerica.com Login - Comerica Bank Online Banking Login

2 Replies to “Comerica webbanking login”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *