Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
The National Arbitration Forum P.O. Box 50191 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405 USA ____________________________________ BEFORE THE NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM Complainant: HEEL QUIK!, INC.
Respondents: MICHAEL H. GOLDMAN, d/b/a Heel Quik! 1980 Rio Hill Center
DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Domain Name(s): heelquik.com; heelquik.org Domain Name Registrar: Network Solutions (for heelquik.com) Date of domain name registration: 7/3/97 (for heelquik.com) Date Complaint was sent to Respondent in accordance with Rule 2(a): 1/24/2000 Response Due Date: 2/16/2000
PROCEDURAL FINDINGS After reviewing the Complaint, and determining it to be in administrative compliance, the National Arbitration Forum (The Forum) forwarded the Complaint to the Respondent on January 24, 2000 in compliance with Rule 2(a), and the administrative proceeding was commenced pursuant to Rule 4(c). In compliance with Rule 4(d), The Forum immediately notified Network Solutions, Inc. (Network Solutions), the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and the Complainant that the administrative proceeding had commenced. Respondents submited a response to The Forum within twenty (20) days pursuant to Rule 5(a). On February 19, 2000, the Respondents submitted an additional response which has been considered. On July 3, 1997, Respondents registered the domain name "heelquik.com" with Network Solutions, Inc., the entity that is the Registrar of the domain name. The evidence suggests that on December 7, 1999, Respondents registered the name "heelquik.org" with a registrar of domain names. On January 25, 2000, Network Solutions verified that the Respondents are the Registrant, and that Network Solutions was the Registrar, for the domain name "heelquik.com", but could not verify the registration for the domain name "heelquik.org". By registering the domain name, "heelquik.com" with Network Solutions, the Respondent agreed to resolve any dispute regarding its domain name through ICANNS Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. However, as the registration of the domain name "heelquik.org", is not verified; there is no evidence that this domain name is subject to dispute resolution through ICANNS Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. The complaint is based on the following trademark or service marks: Heel Quik!, registered September 4, 1984. The above-captioned matter came on for an administrative hearing on March 1, 2000 before the undersigned on the Complaint of HEEL QUIK!, INC., hereafter "Complainant", against MICHAEL H. GOLDMAN, BARBARA S. GOLDMAN, QRS CORP., MAIL QUIK ENTERPRISES, LTD, and AMERISHARE ENTERPRISES, LTD., d/b/a Heel Quik!, hereafter "Respondents". Complainant is represented by Robert C. Port, Hassett Cohen Goldstein & Port, LLP, One Lakeside Commons, 990 Hammond Drive, Suite 990, Atlanta, GA 30328-5529. The Respondents represent themselves. This matter is submitted for decision in accordance with ICANNs Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") and Rules (the "Rules"). Upon the written submitted record, and the following findings and conclusions, I find for the Complainant. FINDINGS OF FACT
CONCLUSIONS Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and The Complainant has shown each of the above. 1. The registered domain name "heelquik.com" IS identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The domain name "heelquik.com" is identical to Complainants registered trademark HEEL QUIK and is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. 2. The Respondent DOES NOT have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain-name "heelquik.com". Under Paragraph 4c. of the Policy, any of the following circumstances demonstrate the Respondents rights or legitimate interests to the domain name:
2) The Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
The Respondent has used, and made preparations to use, the domain name in connection with an offering of its goods and services. However, such use has been a restricted use subject to the terms of a License Agreement. Any use in violation of the License Agreement cannot be a bona fide use within the meaning of the Policy. The License Agreement gave Respondents no ownership interests in the HEEL QUIK trademark. The Agreement merely granted to Respondents the privilege to use the mark with the consent of Heel Quik!. The Agreement provided that the licensee could not register the trademark without the express permission of Heel Quik!. Although the Respondents may have been known locally by the domain name, such was as licensee or franchisee of an international franchiser and does not constitute common knowledge of the domain name. Local knowledge of a franchisee with a license to use the franchise name locally does not necessarily show common knowledge of the domain name as the knowledge is limited by the terms of the license. Nor does the evidence show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Accordingly, Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. The fact that the Respondents may have had a close working relationship with the Complainant, in the absence of an express written agreement to the contrary, does not give the Respondents any rights or interest in the domain name. Nor do the doctrines of waiver and stoppel bar Complainant from asserting its rights to the domain name.
The Respondents have not obtained any rights to the world-wide accessible web sites from the local advertising provisions of the License Agreement. 3. The domain name SHOULD be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith. The Respondents actions with respect to the registration of the domain name evidence bad faith. First, the registration was in violation of the terms of the License Agreement. Second, the Respondents registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant, who is the owner of the trademark, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name. At various times the Respondents have offered to sell the domain names back to Heel Quik! for either excessive consideration or release from the License Agreement.
Third, the registration by a licensee of a licensed mark without permission can mislead the public into thinking that the registrant owns the mark. Irrespective of the Respondents claimed use of the web site for local advertising only, since there is only one unique Internet domain name known as "heelquik.com" and "heelquik.org" all Web users are directed solely and exclusively to the Respondents site rather than to the site of Heel Quik!, Inc., the mark holder. By using the domain name, the Respondents have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondents web site location.
In summary, the Complainant has shown that (1) the registered domain name "heelquik.com" is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (2) the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name "heelquik.com"; and (3) the domain name should be considered as having been registered in bad faith.
DECISION
I certify that I have acted independently and have no known conflict of interest to serve as the arbitrator in this proceeding. Having been duly selected and being impartial, I enter the following decision: Based upon the above findings and conclusions, and pursuant to Rule 4(i), I find in favor of the Complainant and direct that the domain name "heelquik.com" registered by Respondents be transferred to Complainant Heel Quik!, Inc. The request to transfer the domain name "heelquik.org" is denied without prejudice as there is no evidence that the domain name is subject to dispute resolution through the Policy.
This 1st day of March, 2000. Charles K. McCotter, Jr. Arbitrator
|
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2000/19.html