P. O. Box 50191
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405 USA
www.arbitration-forum.com
The New Piper Aircraft, Inc.,
Complainant
vs.
Piper.com,
Respondent
DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Forum File Number FA # 94367
The above entitled matter came on for an administrative
hearing on May 1, 2000, before the undersigned arbitrator in accordance
with ICANNs Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and
Rules. The arbitrator certifies that he
has no conflict of interest
in this matter. After due consideration of the written record as submitted,
the
following decision was made:
PROCEDURAL FINDINGS
Domain Name: Piper.com
Domain Registrant Piper.com Date: May 22, 1997
Domain Registrar: Network Solutions, Inc.
This action was commenced by the Complainant filing its
complaint with the National Arbitration Forum (The Forum) on
March 28, 2000. Thereafter, following a compliance review made in accordance
with ICANN Rule 4, all necessary
parties were duly notified of the commencement
of the administrative proceedings. In due course the Respondent filed
its Response to the Complaint.
Complainant is seeking an assignment of the domain
name "piper.com" from the Respondent, pursuant to Paragraph
4(i) of the Rules. In order to justify transfer of a domain name the
ICANN Policy provides that a complainant must
prove each of the following:
-
that the domain name registered by the Respondent
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service
mark in which the Complainant has rights;
-
that the Respondent has no legitimate interests
in respect of the domain name; and
-
the domain name has been registered and used in
bad faith.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
PARTIES ALLEGATIONS:
-
The Complainant is the holder of U.S. Trademark
Registration No. 514,529 for the mark "Piper" and the
"Piper" logo applied to "airplanes and structural
parts thereof". The mark was registered August 30, 1949, based
upon a date of first use in commerce in November, 1937.
-
Complainant is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration
for the mark "Piper" applied to the "maintenance
and repair of aircraft and related parts and accessories".
The mark was registered August 18, 1998 based upon
a date of first
use in commerce of December, 1943.
-
Complainant is the owner of U.S. Service Mark for
the mark "Piper Logo" covering "maintenance and repair
of aircraft and related parts and accessories therefor," issued
July 15, 1997, based on a first use in commerce
of July, 1995.
- Complainant is the owner of U.S. Service Mark for the mark "Piper
Logo" applied to "aircraft and a full line of aircraft
accessory parts," issued July 15, 1997, based on a first use
in commerce of July, 1995.
-
Complainant and its predecessor in interest, Piper
Aircraft Corporation, have for over sixty years been engaged in
the business of the manufacture and sale of aircraft and aircraft
parts, and, through authorized distributors
and service centers,
in the provision of aircraft maintenance and repair services, all
under the Piper
name and mark.
-
In January 1996, Complainant established a web site
for the electronic promotion of its business endeavors under the
domain name "newpiper.com".
- Respondent acquired the "piper.com" domain name on May
22, 1997. Respondent acknowledges that the domain name is identical
to the word "piper" which is the subject of one of Complainants
registered trademarks that was
registered prior to Respondents
acquisition of "piper.com". However, Complainants
other
egistrations relate to service marks or stylized logos issued
after Respondent had acquired the domain name. Further,
Respondent
notes, in addition to Complainant, many other entities own federal
trademark registrations
for the word "piper". Seven other
separate entities also possess federal trademark registrations for
the identical word "piper" and 69 entities own registrations
that contain the word "piper".
-
The domain name "piper.com was available at
the time Complainant acquired its domain name "newpiper.com".
It did not express interest in the "piper.com" name until
May 1999 when it contacted Respondent
.
-
Respondent is involved in the sale of new and used
aircraft, including Piper aircraft. The domain name "piper.com"
was associated with Respondents web site from the time it
was acquired in May, 1997 until Respondent
received notice of Complainants
dispute with the domain in May, 1999. When Respondent acquired the
domain name it contacted Complainant to offer a free link on the
"piper.com" site. Although Respondent spoke
with a representative
of Complainant and left messages, Complainant never responded to
the offer
.
-
After receiving Complainants letter of May
26, 1999 demanding that Respondent cease and desist from using the
domain name, Respondent revised the "piper.com site to one
dealing with various things related to pipes
and pipers. Respondent
says the revision was made in an effort to alleviate any potential
harm claimed
by Complainant and at Complainants request that
the "piper.com" site not be associated with Respondents
aircraft site. Although Respondent did not believe that Complainants
rights were violated because
Respondent did in fact sell Piper aircraft
and has the right to inform the public of such by virtue of fair
use defenses to trademark infringement, Respondent says it did not
want to exasperate the situation and decided
to revise the website
to alleviate Complainants concerns while the parties were
attempting to
resolve the matter. Complainant asserts that the revision
to the site evidences bad faith. The revised site makes
no reference
to aircraft.
-
Respondent further responded to Complainants
May 26th letter by a letter dated June 17, 1999, in which
Respondent set forth its rationale as to why no infringement, unfair
competition or dilution existed for the Aircraft Site based on fair
use doctrine and offered to include
a disclaimer or notice on the
"piper.com" site to clarify that no association between
Respondent and
Complainant existed. The Respondents letter also
pointed out that there were several domain names registered by entities
other than Complainant or Respondent which included the identical
Piper trademark, to wit: "piper.net",
"piper.org",
and "piperaircraft.com". Later Respondent learned that
other entities had registered "piperaircraft.net"
and
"usedpiper.com".
-
By a letter dated January 7, 2000, Complainant restated
its position and inquired into
the availability of Respondents domain name for
purchase. In response, by letter dated January 21, 2000, Respondent
restated its position and closed by saying "in the event Complainant
still felt that its rights were somehow
being violated, Respondent would
consider settlement of the issued as offered by Complainant.
-
Via letter dated February 17, 2000, Complainant
offered Respondent $3,000.00 (which it considered nuisance value)
for the domain name as a "best and final offer". Respondents
reply pointed out that it had acted
within its rights in the use
of the name. In addition, based on the number of "hits"
at the site and
the many offers to purchase, the value was far in
excess of #3,000.00. Respondent counter-offered that it would be
willing to settle and assign the domain name for $25,000.00. This
was rejected by Complainant. Respondent
offered to lower the price
to $20,000.00, which was also rejected by the Complainant.
-
Respondent maintains that it has rights and a legitimate
interest in "piper.com" as used for both the Aircraft
Site and the Pipe Site. Pursuant to 4(c)(i) of the Policy, Respondent
claims it was using the "piper.com"
Aircraft Site in connection
with the bona fide offering of goods and services (Piper Aircraft)
before
any notice of the dispute. (May, 1997 - May, 1999). Respondent
did not have to be an authorized distributor in order
to sell Piper
Aircraft.. Respondent is in the business of selling Piper aircraft
and, as such, it has
the right to inform consumers that it sells
such aircraft. Accordingly, Respondent claims its use of the domain
name and site falls under the fair use doctrine as a defense to
infringement.
-
In further support of its right to use "piper.com",
as set forth in Rule 4(c )(iii), Respondent claims its use of the
domain name is a legitimate non-commercial and/or fair use of the
domain without intent for commercial
gain to misleadingly divert
consumers or tarnish the trademark. The Pipe Site (as the domain
is presently
used), is not likely to cause confusion with Complainant
nor does it tarnish the Piper trademark, which is widely
used as
registered trademarks and trade names of numerous entities other
than Complainant.
FINDINGS OF FACT
After careful consideration of the submittals,
I find the following facts:
-
The subject domain name is similar to Complainants
mark. However, this might also be said of a number of other
domain
names, some of which appear to be more directly related to the Complainant.
-
As a seller of aircraft, including Piper aircraft,
Respondent has a legitimate interest in the domain name which is
the subject of this complaint. Respondents use of "piper.com"
is a legitimate noncommercial or
fair use of the domain name without
intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to
tarnish the trademark or service mark of the Complainant.
- Respondent has not registered the domain name in order to prevent
the Complainant from using the mark in a domain name,
nor has Respondent
ever engaged in a pattern of such conduct. Additionally, Respondent
did not register
the domain name for the purpose of disrupting the
business of Complainant. Nor did Respondent register the name as
a competitor of Complainant. The offer of a free link to Complainant
in the first place supports this
contention. Complainants
waiting two years to complain after being advised of the existence
of
the site indicates that Complainant did not believe that Respondent
intended to attract internet users to its site
through confusion.
-
Sale of the site only came up as an option after
Complainant raised issue with
Respondent. There is no evidence that Respondent made
an effort to sell the domain name to the Complainant, a competitor
or anyone else before the complaint. Respondents counter- offer
to the Complainants unsolicited
offer to transfer the domain
name for compensation does not constitute bad faith.
DECISION
After reviewing the facts as established through the
submittals, it is the decision of the arbitrator that the Complainant
has failed to prove its case in that the Respondent has rights or legitimate
interest in the domain name which
is the subject of the complaint; and,
the Respondent did not register or use the domain name in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Respondent is allowed to retain and use the domain
name.
Louis E. Condon, Arbitrator
May 2, 2000
Charleston, SC
|