Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Caterpillar
Inc. v. J. Shera
Claim Number: FA0104000097081
PARTIES
Complainant is Gene Bolmarcich, Caterpillar Inc., Peoria, IL, USA (“Complainant”) represented by Mary E. Innis and Danielle B. Lemack, of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson. Respondent is J. Shera, Bradford, II, United Kingdom (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND
DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is "caterpillarengineparts.com" registered with BulkRegister.com, Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Judge Ralph Yachnin, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on April 18, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 19, 2001.
On April 19, 2001, BulkRegister.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "caterpillarengineparts.com" is registered with BulkRegister.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. BulkRegister.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the BulkRegister.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On April 20, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of May 10, 2001 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@caterpillarengineparts.com by e-mail.
Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 17, 2001, the Forum received an additional submission from the Complainant. This additional submission was timely submitted in accordance with Forum Supplemental Rule 7.
On May 24, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent.” Therefore, the Panel may issue its Decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant makes the following contentions:
· The infringing domain name is confusingly similar to the Caterpillar marks.
· Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the infringing domain name.
· Respondent registered and is using the infringing domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
No response was received by the Forum.
C. Complainant’s Additional Submission
Complainant’s additional submission contends that Respondent contacted Danielle Lemack, attorney for Complainant, on May 3, 2001 (after this ICANN proceeding was commenced by the Forum). Ms. Lemack explained to Respondent that Caterpillar was requesting transfer of the infringing domain name. Complainant alleges that Respondent refused to transfer the domain name unless Caterpillar agreed to pay Respondent $10,000.
FINDINGS
Since long prior to Respondent's registration of the infringing domain name, Caterpillar adopted, and has continuously used, the inherently distinctive mark CATERPILLAR and the design mark.
Mark |
Goods/ Services |
First Use in Commerce |
Reg. No. |
Reg. Date |
Caterpillar |
Tractors, tractor engines, track links, track shoes, grousers, grease guns, agricultural machinery tools and equipment, road construction and maintenance machinery tools and equipment, and the parts for all said goods |
9/00/04 |
277,417 |
11/11/30 |
Caterpillar |
Tractors adapted to be employed in farming operations, road building, mining, logging, earth moving, hauling and for other industrial and agricultural purposes |
9/00/04 |
345,499 |
4/27/37 |
Caterpillar |
Dump wagons, wheel tractor-sump-wagon combinations, and structural parts for such products |
00/00/41 |
506,258 |
2/1/49 |
Caterpillar |
Diesel engines for marine purposes; cable-control units for controlling cable actuated equipment associated with tractors and the like |
1/00/39 |
531,626 |
10/10/50 |
Caterpillar |
Tires |
9/30/70 |
955,141 |
3/13/73 |
Caterpillar (Design) |
Lift trucks and engines, attachments, and parts |
9/00/70 |
985,439 |
6/4/74 |
Caterpillar (Design) |
Machinery for earth moving, earth conditioning and material handling namely, loaders and engines therefor, and parts for vehicle and internal combustion engines |
10/20/88 |
2,140,605 |
3/3/98 |
On May 17, 2000, long after the Caterpillar marks became established, Respondent registered the infringing domain name, “caterpillarengineparts.com.” To help drive traffic to its website, Respondent uses the metatags “caterpillar,” “caterpillarengineparts” and “caterpillar engine parts.”
Respondent's website at “caterpillarengineparts.com” is identical to the website at bradfordgrinders.co.uk. The domain name bradfordgrinders.co.uk is registered to Bradford Grinders UK Ltd.
On March 21, 2001, Complainant sent Respondent a cease and desist letter via registered mail requesting that Respondent cancel or assign to Complainant the registration for “caterpillarengineparts.com.” Respondent did not respond to Caterpillar’s letter.
On May 3, 2001 Respondent contacted an attorney for Complainant and refused to transfer the domain name unless he was paid $10,000.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph
15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of
the statements and documents submitted in
accordance with the Policy, these
Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(2) the 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.
The Panel has carefully reviewed the evidence presented and determines that Complainant clearly has met all the requirements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
Identical and/or
Confusingly Similar
The domain name, “caterpillarengineparts.com,” is confusingly similar to the Caterpillar marks because the domain name incorporates in its entirety the CATERPILLAR mark. Further, the addition of the descriptive suffix “engineparts” to the CATERPILLAR mark reinforces the association between the domain name and the Caterpillar marks because the phrase “engine parts” describes a category of Caterpillar's products. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Matthew Quin, D2000-0314 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that caterpillarparts.com and caterpillarspares.com are confusingly similar to the CATERPILLAR marks); Hewlett Packard Company v. Posch Software, FA 95322 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Sept. 12, 2000) (finding that hp-software.com is confusingly similar to complainant's HP marks).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or
Legitimate Interests
Evidence provided by Complainant shows that Respondent has no rights, nor any legitimate interest, in respect of domain name at issue. On the contrary, Respondent’s registration for the domain name forms part of an intentional abuse of the domain name system on the part of the Respondent, acting so as to gain financially from the transfer of domain name registration to the trademark owner and/or to disrupt legitimate business activities.
Further, Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). Unauthorized use of a mark in connection with the sale of multiple brands of goods does not constitute bona fide use, even if the complainant’s goods can be purchased. See Chanel, Inc. v. Cologne Zone, D2000-1809 (WIPO Feb. 22, 2001) (finding that use of a mark to sell complainant’s perfume, as well as other brands of perfume, is not bona fide use); National Collegiate Athletic Assoc. v. Halpern, D2000-0700 (WIPO Dec. 10, 2000) (finding that domain names used to sell complainant’s goods without complainant’s authority, as well as others’ goods is not bona fide use).
Since Respondent is using the domain name in connection with commercial activities, Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) does not apply as evidence of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Registration and
Use in Bad Faith
Respondent registered the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website in violation of Policy¶ 4(b)(iv). The domain name encompasses the CATERPILLAR mark and adds a descriptive phrase that suggests that consumers can purchase Caterpillar's goods. Respondent’s use of the Caterpillar mark in connection with its website creates a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent's website, particularly in light of the fact that consumers recognize the Caterpillar mark as an indication that a dealer is authorized by Caterpillar. By creating a likelihood of confusion, Respondent is acting in bad faith. See Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Ostanik, D2000-1611 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2001) (finding that use of complainant’s mark to attract consumers to buy complainant’s, or others’, products is in bad faith because it is likely to cause confusion).
In addition, after
commencement of this ICANN proceeding, Respondent offered to sell the domain
name for $10,000. This price far
exceeds any reasonable out of pocket costs that Respondent would have incurred
to purchase and maintain the domain
name.
Respondent’s unsolicited offer to sell "caterpillarengineparts.com" for a price that far exceeds
Respondent’s out of pocket costs constitutes additional evidence of his bad
faith registration and use
of the domain name.
Policy ¶
4(b)(iv). See Little Six, Inc v. Domain For Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum,
Apr. 30, 2001) (finding respondent's offer to sell the domain name at issue to
complainant was evidence
of bad faith); Matmut
v. Tweed, WIPO D2000-1183 (WIPO Nov. 27, 2000) (holding that respondent's
offer to sell the disputed domain name for $10,000 constitutes evidence
of bad
faith).
Accordingly, for
all the various reasons discussed above, the Panel finds that the domain name
has been registered and is being used
by the Respondent in bad faith, as
required by Policy ¶
4(a)(iii).
DECISION
Having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4(a), it is the decision of the panel that the requested relief be granted.
Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain name "caterpillarengineparts.com" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: May 29, 2001
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2001/1041.html