Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
DECISION
Weekley Homes, L.P. v. Fix My House Or Else?
Claim Number: FA0102000096609
PARTIES
The Complainant is Weekley Homes, L.P., Houston, TX, USA ("Complainant") represented by Frank J. Carmel, Esq., of Carmel & Carmel PC. The Respondent is FIX MY HOME OR ELSE?, Houston, TX, USA ("Respondent") represented by Bernard Lilse Mathews, III, of Hocker, Morrow & Mathews.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is "davidweekleyhome.com", registered with Network Solutions.
PANEL
The undersigned certify that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge, have no known conflict in serving as panelists in this proceeding.
Honorable John J. Upchurch (Ret.), Honorable Louis E. Condon (Ret.) and Jordan S. Weinstein, Esquire have been selected as the Panel.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on February 8, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 7, 2001.
On February 12, 2001, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "davidweekleyhome.com" is registered with Network Solutions and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions 4.0 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 February 16, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 8, 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@davidweekleyhome.com by e-mail.
A timely response was received and determined to be complete on March 8, 2001.
An additional submission from the Complainant was received and determined to be complete on March 16, 2001.
On March 19, 2001, pursuant to Respondent’s request to have the dispute decided by a Three Member Panel, the Forum appointed Judges Upchurch and Condon as panelists. Mr. Weinstein was appointed as the third panelist on April 2, 2001.
RELIEF SOUGHT
The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
FINDINGS
The panel finds for the Complainant and has determined that the requested relief should be granted.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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."
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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The domain name in question differs from Complainant’s trademark only by the deletion of the letter "s" from the word HOMES. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. HarperStephens, D2000-0716 (WIPO Sept. 5, 2000) (finding that deleting the letter "s" from the Complainant’s UNIVERSAL STUDIOS STORE mark does not change the overall impression of the mark and thus is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark); Asprey & Garrard Ltd v. Canlan Computing, D2000-1262 (WIPO Nov. 14, 2000) (finding that the domain name <asprey.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s "Asprey & Garrard" and "Miss Asprey" marks).
We find the domain name in question to be identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has made no legitimate, noncommercial, or fair use of the domain name. Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Robo Enterprises, Inc. v. Orvin Tobiason, FA 95857 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Dec. 24, 2000) (rejecting Respondent’s asserted rights or legitimate interest in the domain name <roboenterprises-investors.com>, noting that while the content of Respondent’s web site may enjoy first amendment and fair use protection, those protections do not equate rights or a legitimate interest "with respect to [a] domain name" which is confusingly similar to another’s trademark); Chi-Chi’s Inc. v. Restaurant Commentary, D2000-0321 (WIPO June 29, 2000) (finding that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name even though Respondent stated that it intended to use the domain name for "public comment" on the Internet). See also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Northway, FA 95464 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 11, 2000) (finding that the Respondent can accomplish his stated purpose of providing news and information about State Farm without the use of State Farm’s trademark in a name).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Registering domain names in order to prevent an owner of a trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use, provided there is evidence of a pattern of conduct. Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Australian Stock Exchange v. Community Internet (Australia), D2000-1384 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(b)(ii) where Respondent registered multiple infringing domain names containing the trademarks or service marks of other widely known Australian businesses). We find that such a pattern of conduct has been established.
Complainant also contends that Respondent registered the domain name in order to extract something of value in exchange for the domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent requested a number of services and monetary compensation in exchange for the domain name (see page 2 of Complaint). Complainant also asserts that Respondent, in a conversation with Complainant’s employee, admitted he registered domain names for the purpose of selling them back to either the trademark owner or someone else wanting the domain name. Registering a domain name for the purpose of extracting valuable consideration in excess of out of pocket costs related to the domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use. Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Metallica v. Schnieder, FA 95636 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 18, 2000) (finding bad faith based on Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) where the Respondent offered to transfer the domain name in return for nonmonetary consideration (i.e., if the Complainant met with the Respondent, called two of his friends, and granted the Respondent on interview)); Technology Properties, Inc v. Hussain, FA 95411 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent verbally offered the domain names for sale for $2,000).
Complainant also contends that any use of the domain name would be for the sole purpose of misleading or diverting Internet consumers to other websites. Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) states that diverting Internet traffic via a confusingly similar domain name is evidence of bad faith if it is for commercial gain. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Northway, FA 95464 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 11, 2000) (finding that the Respondent registered the domain name <statefarmnews.com> in bad faith because Respondent intends to use Complainant’s marks to attract the public to the web site without permission from Complainant).
We reject Respondent’s claim that use of the domain name to comment on consumer issues is a First Amendment Free Speech right. See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding that where Respondent knowingly chose a domain name, identical to Complainant’s mark, to voice its concerns, opinions, and criticism about the Complainant is evidence of bad faith); Monty and Pat Roberts, Inc. v. Bill Keith, D2000-0299 (WIPO June 9, 2000) (finding that "[T]he Panel does not dispute Respondent’s right to establish and maintain a website critical of (the Complainant)....however, the panel does not consider that this gives Respondent the right to identify itself as Complainant")
DECISION
Upon consideration, the domain name davidweekleyhome.com shall be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
Honorable John J. Upchurch
Retired Judge
Arbitrator
Hon. Louis E. Condon (Ret.)
Jordan S. Weinstein
Dated this 18th day of April, 2001.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2001/782.html