Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
National Cable Satellite Corporation
d/b/a C-Span v. Charles J. Span
Claim Number: FA0205000114383
PARTIES
Complainant
is National Cable Satellite Corporation
d/b/a C-Span, Washington, DC, USA (“Complainant”) represented by Marc Miller, of McLeod, Watkinson & Miller.
Respondent is Charles J. Span,
London, UNITED KINGDOM (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <c-span.com>
and <cspan.com>, registered with Bulkregister.com, Inc.
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 22, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the Complaint
on .
On
May 22, 2002, Bulkregister.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain names <c-span.com> and <cspan.com> are registered with Bulkregister.com, Inc. and
that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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
May 23, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of June 12,
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@c-span.com and postmaster@cspan.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
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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
The <c-span.com> and <cspan.com>
domain names are respectively identical and confusingly similar to
Complainant’s C-SPAN mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain names.
Respondent registered and used the
disputed domain names in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
has failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant owns a registered trademark
on the Principal Register of United States Patent and Trademark Office for
C-SPAN (Reg. No.
114383). Complainant
has used the C-SPAN mark since 1979.
The C-SPAN mark is recognized worldwide and is associated with balanced,
impartial and non-partisan coverage of the United States
Congress, events
related to governmental and public affairs, and other programming.
Respondent registered the disputed domain
names on August 10, 2002. Respondent
has yet to develop a use for the domain names.
Complainant sent a letter to Respondent, which notified Respondent of
its rights in the C-SPAN mark and demanded that Respondent transfer
the
disputed domain names to Complainant.
Complainant was unable to locate
Respondent and believes that Respondent provided a false contact name, “Charles
J. Span,” when registering
the disputed domain names.
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 its rights
to the C-SPAN mark through registration with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office
and subsequent continuous use.
Respondent’s <c-span.com>
domain name contains Complainant’s C-SPAN mark in its entirety. The addition of the generic top-level domain
“.com” is inconsequential when conducting an “identical” analysis under Policy
¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, Respondent’s <c-span.com>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark. See 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
“.com”
after the name POMELLATO is not relevant); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000)
(finding that the generic top level domain, such as “.net” or “.com,” does not
affect the domain
name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical).
Respondent’s <cspan.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s C-SPAN mark because the
omission of a hyphen from a mark is irrelevant when conducting
a “confusingly
similar” analysis. See Nat’l
Cable Satellite Corp. v. Black Sun Surf Co., FA 94738 (Nat. Arb. Forum June
19, 2000) (holding that the domain name <cspan.net>, which omitted the
hyphen from the trademark spelling,
C-SPAN, is confusingly similar to
Complainant's mark); see also Ritz-Carlton
Hotel Co. v. Club Car Executive, D2000-0611 (WIPO Sept. 18, 2000) (finding
that removing a hyphen in the domain names is not sufficient to differentiate
the domain
names from the mark).
Accordingly, 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 names
and Respondent’s
failure to respond, the Panel may presume Respondent has no
such rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228
(WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that under certain circumstances the mere
assertion by the Complainant that the Respondent
has no right or legitimate
interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the Respondent to
demonstrate that such a right
or legitimate interest does exist). 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”).
Complainant’s investigation revealed that
Respondent has not put the disputed domain names to use during nearly two years
of ownership. Also, Respondent has not
come forward to offer any evidence that it has actively used the disputed domain
names. Therefore, Respondent’s passive
holding of the disputed domain names does not constitute a bona fide offering
of goods or services
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor does it constitute a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See 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); see also Vestel
Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret AS v. Kahveci, D2000-1244 (WIPO Nov. 11, 2000)
(finding that “merely registering the domain name is not sufficient to
establish rights or legitimate
interests for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of
the Policy”).
Complainant’s investigation failed to
uncover any person in the United Kingdom named Charles J. Span, which is the
name Respondent
registered the disputed domain names under. Complainant contends that Charles J. Span is
a false name and that Respondent is not commonly known as C-SPAN, CSPAN, <c-span.com>,
or <cspan.com>. Respondent
offers no evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, Respondent has not met the burden of 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 names,
thus, Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent’s passive holding of the
disputed domain names for two years amounts to bad faith use under Policy ¶
4(a)(iii). See Mondich & Am. Vintage Wine Biscuits,
Inc. v. Brown, D2000-0004 (WIPO Feb. 16, 2000) (holding that the
Respondent’s failure to develop its website in a two year period raises the
inference
of registration in bad faith); see also DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000)
(concluding that the Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies
the requirement of
¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v.
Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely
holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in
bad
faith).
Due to the fame and notoriety of
Complainant’s C-SPAN mark, Respondent had constructive notice of Complainant’s
rights in the mark. Such knowledge and
subsequent registration of an identical and confusingly similar mark represents
bad faith registration under Policy
¶ 4(a)(iii). See Exxon Mobil
Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18. 2000) (finding that Respondent
had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s EXXON mark given
the
world-wide prominence of the mark and thus Respondent registered the domain
name in bad faith); see also Victoria's
Secret v. Hardin, FA 96694 (Nat Arb. Forum Mar. 31, 2001) (finding that, in
light of the notoriety of Complainants' famous marks, Respondent had actual
or
constructive knowledge of the BODY BY VICTORIA marks at the time she registered
the disputed domain name and such knowledge constituted
bad faith).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
has been satisfied.
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 <c-span.com> and
<cspan.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent
to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: July 17, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1192.html