Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
K & N Engineering, Inc. v. Autoair
Holdings Bhd
Claim Number: FA0205000114351
PARTIES
Complainant
is K & N Engineering, Inc.,
Riverside, CA, USA (“Complainant”) represented by David J. Steele, of Christie,
Parker & Hale LLP. Respondent
is Autoair Holdings Bhd, Sg Buloh,
Selangor, MALAYSIA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <filtercharger.net>,
registered with Intercosmos Media Group.
PANEL
The
undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to
the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in
serving as Panelist in this
proceeding.
Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on May 20, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the Complaint
on May 23, 2002.
On
May 21, 2002, Intercosmos Media Group confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <filtercharger.net>
is registered with Intercosmos Media Group and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Intercosmos
Media Group has verified that Respondent is bound by the Intercosmos Media
Group 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
May 30, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of June 19,
2002 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@filtercharger.net 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
July 3, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., 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 Respondent to Complainant.
A.
Complainant
The
<filtercharger.net> domain name is identical to Complainant’s
FILTERCHARGER mark.
Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the <filtercharger.net>
domain name.
Respondent
registered and used the <filtercharger.net> domain name in bad
faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant owns numerous trademarks for
the FILTERCHARGER mark worldwide, including Reg. No. 1,281,461 with the United
States Patent
and Trademark Office. For
nearly twenty years Complainant’s FILTERCHARGER mark has been closely
associated with its automotive air filters distributed around
the world. Complainant sells its automotive air filters
in Malaysia, Respondent’s domicile, through two Malaysian distributors.
Respondent registered the <filtercharger.net>
domain name on May 6, 2002. Respondent
does not actively use the domain name.
Respondent is in the business of selling and distributing automotive
products, which are similar to Complainant’s products.
Prior to registering the <filtercharger.net>
domain name, Respondent registered <filtercharger.com> and
<filtercharger.biz> and lost them to Complainant in previous
UDRP
disputes. Complainant attempted to
amicably settle the prior domain name disputes with Respondent but Respondent
demanded that Complainant pay
a cost in excess of out-of-pocket expenses for
the domain names. Regarding the current
matter, Respondent sent a letter to Complainant after registering <filtercharger.net>
warning Complainant that, “God will punish those who hijack domains without
compensation.”
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 and
draw such inferences it considers appropriate
pursuant to paragraph 14(b) 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; and
(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
Complainant has established rights in
the FILTERCHARGER mark through trademark registration throughout the world and
subsequent continuous
use.
Respondent’s <filtercharger.net>
domain name contains Complainant’s entire FILTERCHARGER mark. Since the addition of the generic top-level
domain “.net” is inconsequential when conducting an “identical” analysis,
Respondent’s
domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000)
(finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does
not affect the domain
name for the purpose of determining whether it is
identical or confusingly similar); see also Pomellato S.P.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding
<pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s mark because the generic
top-level domain
(gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has
been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
In light of Complainant’s assertion that
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name
and Respondent’s
failure to respond, the Panel may presume Respondent has no
such rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO
Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as
an admission that they have no
legitimate interest in the domain names). Furthermore, when Respondent fails to submit
a Response, the Panel is permitted to make all inferences in favor of
Complainant. See Talk City, Inc.
v. Robertson, D2000-0009, (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000)
(“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all
allegations of the Complaint”).
After Respondent registered <filtercharger.net>
it notified Complainant of the registration. In an email to Complainant Respondent stated, “[y]ou are free to
submit for more disputed domains that we have and one day we will
take them all
back from your client.” This message
appears to be a threat to Complainant designed to induce Complainant not to
enforce its trademark rights in the FILTERCHARGER
mark. Respondent’s behavior permits an inference
that it registered the <filtercharger.net> domain name in order to
market it to Complainant. Also,
Respondent has made no active use of the <filtercharger.net>
domain name. Therefore, due to
Respondent’s threatening behavior and passive holding of the domain name,
Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the domain name pursuant to
Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii). See
Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v. Sallen,
D2000-0715 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (finding that rights or legitimate interests do
not exist when one holds a domain name primarily
for the purpose of marketing
it to the owner of a corresponding trademark); see also Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero,
D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where Respondent failed to submit a Response to the Complaint
and had made no
use of the domain name in question).
Respondent does not own any trademarks in
the FILTERCHARGER mark and does not operate its business under that name, nor
is Respondent
commonly known by <filtercharger.net>. Respondent registered the domain name under
the auspices of “Autoair Holdings Bhd.”
Therefore, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <filtercharger.net>
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
See Gallup Inc. v. Amish
Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that
Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known
by the mark); see also Broadcom
Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001)
(finding no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent is not commonly
known by
the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a
legitimate or fair use).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name,
thus, Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent registered <filtercharger.net>
after it lost the <filtercharger.com> and <filtercharger.biz>
domain names to Complainant in prior UDRP disputes. Hence, Respondent was aware of Complainant’s rights in the
FILTERCHARGER mark upon registering <filtercharger.net>. Therefore, Respondent registered the domain
name in bad faith. See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil,
D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 8, 2000) (finding bad faith where (1) the Respondent knew
or should have known of the Complainant’s SONY marks
and (2) Respondent
registered multiple domain names which infringed upon the Complainant’s mark); see
also Samsonite Corp. v. Colony
Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of
bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly
known mark at
the time of registration).
Given Respondent’s aforementioned threats
to Complainant regarding the <filtercharger.net> domain name and
the fact that Respondent sells and distributes similar automotive products as
Complainant, it can be inferred that
Respondent registered the domain name
primarily to disrupt Complainant’s business.
Therefore, Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See
Lubbock Radio Paging v. Venture
Tele-Messaging, FA 96102 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 23, 2000) (concluding that
domain names were registered and used in bad faith where Respondent and
Complainant were in the same line of business in the same market area); see
also Surface Prot. Indus., Inc. v.
Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001) (finding that, given the
competitive relationship between Complainant and Respondent, Respondent
likely
registered the contested domain name with the intent to disrupt Complainant's
business).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
has been satisfied.
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under
the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief should be
hereby
GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <filtercharger.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: July 15 2002.
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1149.html