START-UP TRADEMARK OPPOSITION POLICY

DECISION

Crown Central Petroleum Corporation v. International Newcastle

Claim Number: FA0205000114326

PARTIES

Complainant is Crown Central Petroleum Corporation, Baltimore, MD (“Complainant”) represented by Andrew Lapayowker.  Respondent is International Newcastle, Miami, FL (“Respondent”).

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <crown.biz>, registered with IHoldings.com, Inc. d/b/a DotRegistrar.com.

PANEL

On  July 16, 2002, pursuant to STOP Rule 6(b), the Forum appointed  James P. Buchele as the single Panelist. 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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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 17, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 20, 2002.

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 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.

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.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Transfer of the domain name from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The <crown.biz> domain name is identical to Complainant's CROWN mark.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <crown.biz> domain name.

Respondent registered the <crown.biz> domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

Complainant owns several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for its CROWN mark, including Registration Numbers 40,411; 911,167; 911,168; 1,464,013; 1,577,282.  Complainant uses the mark in commerce in relation to petroleum products, gas station services, lubricants and retail services.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 27, 2002.  Respondent listed the domain name for sale in its registration information for the domain name.  For example, Respondent’s address line reads, “FOR SALE at Domain Collection.com.”

DISCUSSION

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’s Rights in the Mark

Complainant has established that it has rights in the CROWN mark through registration and use.  Furthermore, Respondent’s <crown.biz> domain name is identical to Complainant’s CROWN mark because it incorporates Complainant’s entire mark. 

The Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has failed to come forward with a Response and therefore it is presumed that Respondent has not demonstrated 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”).

There is no evidence on record, and Respondent has not come forward to prove that it has any trademarks or service marks for CROWN anywhere in the world.  Therefore, Respondent has failed to establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).  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).

Based on Respondent’s WHOIS information advertising the <crown.biz> domain name for sale it can be inferred that Respondent registered the domain name with the intent to sell it.  The sale of a domain name 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 domain name suggests it has no legitimate use).

Respondent is known to this Panel as International Newcastle and domaincollection.com, and there is no evidence that Respondent is known by, or does business under any other name.  Respondent has not come forward with evidence, therefore Respondent has failed to establish that it is commonly known as CROWN or <crown.biz> pursuant to STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See CBS Broad., Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone, D2000-0397 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the <twilight-zone.net> domain name since Complainant had been using the TWILIGHT ZONE mark since 1959); see also Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark).

The Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Registration or Use in Bad Faith

Based on Respondent’s WHOIS information it can be inferred that its primary purpose in registering <crown.biz> was to sell the domain name for profit.  The registration of a domain name in order to sell, rent, or transfer the domain name is considered to be registration and use in bad faith pursuant to STOP Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).  See 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); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Mehrotra, D2000-0053 (WIPO Apr. 10, 2000) (finding bad faith where that Respondent registered the domain name for the purpose of selling it, as revealed by the name the Respondent chose for the registrant, “If you want this domain name, please contact me”).

The Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be hereby granted.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name <crown.biz> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

James P. Buchele, Panelist

Dated: July 22, 2002

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1222.html