Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Tamko Roofing Products Inc. v. Cambridge
Claim Number: FA0205000114386
Complainant
is Tamko Roofing Products Inc.,
Joplin, MO (“Complainant”) represented by William
B. Kircher, of Shook Hardy & Bacon. Respondent is Cambridge, Miami, FL (“Respondent”).
The
domain name at issue is <epoch.biz>,
registered with Iholdings.com.
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.
Judge
Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant
has standing to file a Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy (“STOP”) Complaint,
as it timely filed the required Intellectual
Property (IP) Claim Form with the
Registry Operator, NeuLevel. As an IP
Claimant, Complainant timely noted its intent to file a STOP Complaint against
Respondent with the Registry Operator, NeuLevel
and with the National Arbitration
Forum (the “Forum”).
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 21, 2002; the Forum
received a hard copy of the Complaint on
May 23, 2002.
On
May 31, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of June 20,
2002 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was
transmitted to Respondent in compliance
with paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for
the Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy (the “STOP Rules”).
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 9, 2002, pursuant to STOP Rule 6(b), the Forum
appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.)
as the single 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 STOP Rules. Therefore, the Panel
may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with
the STOP Policy, STOP Rules, the
Forum’s STOP Supplemental Rules and any rules
and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of
any Response
from Respondent.
Transfer
of the domain name from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <epoch.biz> domain name is identical to Complainant’s EPOCH
common law mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in respect of the <epoch.biz>
domain name.
3. Respondent registered the <epoch.biz> domain name in bad
faith.
B. Respondent did not submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant has operated EPOCH Composite
Products, Inc. in commerce in the U.S. since November 1999 in respect to
composite lumber
products. Complainant has spent more than $100,000 in
advertising goods and services bearing the EPOCH trademark. Complainant has
a
pending trademark application (Serial No. 75/847,040) filed with the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on November 12,
1999.
Respondent registered the disputed domain
name on March 27, 2002 through NeuLevel’s STOP domain name registration
procedure. Complainant’s
investigation revealed that Respondent, Cambridge,
represents DomainCollection Inc., an entity involved in the registration and
selling
of domain names irrespective of a third party’s prior rights.
Paragraph 15(a) of the STOP 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 STOP Rules
and draw such inferences it considers appropriate
pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of
the STOP Rules.
Paragraph
4(a) of the STOP Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the
following three elements to obtain an order
that a domain name should be
transferred:
(1) the domain name
is identical 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 or is being used in bad faith.
Due
to the common authority of the ICANN policy governing both the Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and these
STOP proceedings, the Panel
will exercise its discretion to rely on relevant UDRP precedent where
applicable.
Under
the STOP proceedings, a STOP Complaint may only be filed when the domain name
in dispute is identical to a trademark or service
mark for which a Complainant
has registered an Intellectual Property (“IP”) claim form. Therefore, every STOP proceeding necessarily
involves a disputed domain name that is identical to a trademark or service
mark in which
a Complainant asserts rights.
The existence of the “.biz” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) in the
disputed domain name is not a factor for purposes of determining
that a
disputed domain name is not identical to the mark in which the Complainant
asserts rights.
Complainant
has established its common law rights in the EPOCH mark through a pending
trademark application and continuous use of
the mark in relation to its
composite lumber products since 1999. The ICANN dispute resolution policy is
“broad in scope” in that
“the reference to a trademark or service mark ‘in
which the complainant has rights’ means that ownership of a registered mark is
not required–unregistered or common law trademark or service mark rights will
suffice” to support a domain name complaint under the
Policy. See
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 25:74.2, Vol. 4 (2000); see also SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Masood,
D2000-0131 (WIPO Apr. 13, 2000) (finding that the Rules do not require that the
Complainant's trademark or service mark be registered
by a government authority
or agency for such rights to exist. Rights
in the mark can be established by pending trademark applications); see also Crazy Creek Prods., Inc. v. Siemen’s Bus. Servs., FA 102795 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Feb. 12, 2002) (finding that the Complainant satisfied STOP Policy ¶
4(a)(i) by demonstrating its common
law rights in the CRAZY CREEK mark).
Respondent’s
<epoch.biz> domain name is
identical to Complainant’s EPOCH common law mark because Respondent’s second
level domain incorporates Complainant’s
mark in its entirety. Respondent’s
domain name deviates from Complainant’s mark only in the inconsequential
addition of the gTLD
“.biz.” See
Princeton Linear Assoc., Inc. v. Copland o/b/o LAN Solutions Inc. FA 102811
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 8, 2001) (finding that the <.biz> gTLD in the
disputed domain name is not a factor and hence
to be ignored, in determining
whether a disputed domain name is identical to the mark in which Complainant
asserts rights).
Accordingly,
the Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Respondent did not submit a Response in
this proceeding. Therefore, it is presumed that Respondent lacks rights and
legitimate interests
in the <epoch.biz>
domain name. See Canadian Imperial
Bank of Commerce v. D3M Virtual Reality Inc., AF-0336 (eResolution Sept.
23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where no such right or
interest was immediately
apparent to the Panel and Respondent did not come
forward to suggest any right or interest it may have possessed).
Furthermore, because Respondent failed to
submit a Response in this proceeding, the Panel is permitted to make all
reasonable 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”).
Respondent has yet to develop a stated
purpose for the disputed domain name and has not provided any evidence showing
demonstrable
preparations to use <epoch.biz>
in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to
STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant’s investigation produced
credible evidence
that Respondent is actually representing DomainCollection Inc., a domain name
auction site that registers domain
names with the intent to sell them at a
profitable margin. Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name for
the purpose
of selling it and monetarily benefiting is not considered to be a
bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to STOP Policy
¶ 4(c)(ii). See J. Paul Getty Trust v. Domain 4 Sale
& Co., FA 95262 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2000) (finding rights or
legitimate interests do not exist when one has made no use of the websites
that
are located at the domain names at issue, other than to sell the domain names
for profit); see also Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding Respondent’s conduct
purporting to sell the domain name suggests it has no legitimate use).
There is no evidence that suggests
Respondent is the owner or beneficiary of a trademark or service mark
reflecting the <epoch.biz> domain
name pursuant to STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is there any information that
implies Respondent is commonly known by its registered
<epoch.biz> domain name. As stated, Complainant’s
investigation provides the Panel with information that Respondent is actually
known as “DomainCollection
Inc.,” a domain name auction site with no apparent
legitimate connection to the infringing domain name other than to offer it for
sale. See Nat’l Acad. Of Recording Arts
& Sci Inc. v. Lsites, FA 103059 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 11, 2002)
(finding that, because Respondent did not come forward with a Response, the
Panel could
infer that it had no trademark or service marks identical to
<grammy.biz> and therefore had no rights or legitimate interests
in the
domain name); see also 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 Compagnie de Saint
Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no
rights or legitimate interest where Respondent was not commonly known by the
mark and
never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the
trademarked name).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that STOP
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent
registered an infringing domain name without any apparent rights or legitimate
interests. Respondent’s lack of legitimate
interest in the <epoch.biz> domain name and knowledge of Complainant’s rights
in the EPOCH mark implies that Respondent registered the disputed domain name
in
order to prevent Complainant from reflecting its mark in a corresponding
domain name. Respondent’s depriving Complainant of the ability
to accurately
reflect its mark in a domain name represents bad faith registration under STOP
Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Toyota Jidosha
Kabushiki Kaisha v. S&S Enter. Ltd., D2000-0802 (WIPO Sept. 9, 2000)
(finding that “Registration of a domain name goes further than merely correctly
using in an advertisement
the trade mark of another in connection with that
other’s goods or services: it prevents the trade mark owner from reflecting
that
mark in a corresponding domain name”); see
also Peachtree Software v. Scarponi, FA 102781 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Jan. 23, 2002) (finding bad faith under STOP Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), noting that it
was reasonable to conclude
Respondent registered <peachtree.biz>
with the intent to prevent Complainant from reflecting its PEACHTREE mark in a
corresponding
domain name, given Respondent's knowledge of Complainant's mark
and Respondent's lack of rights or interests in the mark).
Complainant
provided the Panel with evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain
name primarily for the purpose of selling,
renting or otherwise transferring
the domain name. Registration of an infringing domain name with the intention
of commercially benefiting
from its sale represents bad faith registration
under STOP Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc’y v. “Infa dot Net” Web
Serv., FA 95685 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that “general offers to sell the domain name, even if no
certain price is demanded,
are evidence of bad faith”); see also Wembley Nat’l
Stadium Ltd. v. Thomson, D2000-1233 (WIPO Nov. 16, 2000) (finding bad faith
based on the apparent willingness of the Respondent to sell the domain name in
issue from the outset, albeit not at a price reflecting only the costs of
registering and maintaining the name).
The Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶
4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under the STOP Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief should be hereby GRANTED.
Accordingly,
it is Ordered that the <epoch.biz>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from
Respondent to Complainant, and that subsequent challenges under the STOP Policy
against this domain name SHALL NOT be
permitted.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: July 18, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1198.html