Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Broadcom Corporation v. Ayers
International Group, Inc.
Claim Number: FA0204000112562
PARTIES
Complainant is Broadcom Corporation, Irvine, CA (“Complainant”) represented by Gary J. Nelson, of Christie, Parker & Hale LLP.
Respondent is Ayers International
Group, Inc., Staten Island, NY (“Respondent”) represented by Stephen H. Sturgeon, of Law Offices of Stephen H. Sturgeon &
Associates, PC.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <broadcom-usa.com>, registered
with Register.com.
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.
Hon.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister (Ret.) is the Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the
National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on April 29, 2002; the
Forum received
a hard copy of the Complaint on April 30, 2002.
On May 2, 2002, Register.com confirmed by
e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <broadcom-usa.com>
is registered with Register.com and that the Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Register.com
has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com 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 2, 2002, a Notification of
Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement
Notification”), setting
a deadline of May 22, 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@broadcom-usa.com by e-mail.
Respondent’s Submission was received on
June 19, 2002, 28 days after the original deadline established for the
Response. Complainant’s Additional
Submission was received after the deadline for submissions on June 24,
2002. Respondent’s Additional
Submission was also received after the deadline for submissions on June 26,
2002.
On July 12, 2002,
pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Charles A. Kuechenmeister (Ret.)
as Panelist. Respondent requested a three-member Panel but this request was
denied as not timely made.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name
be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant is the owner of U.S.
Trademark Registration Nos. 2,132,930, and 2,392,925, both for BROADCOM and
both showing a date of
first use of November 7, 1994, for computer hardware and
software for digitally operating upon signals in a network system to recover
the information represented by such signals, for recovering and decoding video
and audio information from signals transmitted by
a direct broadcast satellite,
and computer hardware, integrated circuits and software for controlling and
using integrated circuits. A third
mark, "BROADCOM and design," is registered as No. 2,326,387, showing
a date of first use of November 7, 1994, for
computer hardware, integrated
circuits and software for controlling and using integrated circuits. Complainant has used the BROADCOM mark in
commerce in connection with the marketing and sale of its said products since
1994.
Complainant designs, develops and
supplies integrated circuits for a number of the most significant broadband
communications markets,
including the markets for cable set-top boxes, cable
modems, high-speed local, metropolitan and wide-area networks, home networking,
voice over internet protocol, residential broadband gateways, direct broadcast
satellite and terrestrial digital broadcast, optical
networking, digital
networking, digital subscriber lines and wireless communications.
Complainant has
strategic customer relationships with 3Com, Nortel-Bay, Cisco Systems,
Motorola/General Instrument and Scientific-Atlanta. Complainant's revenue for the
year ending 2001, as reported in its On-line Annual Report, was approximately
$961,800,000.00. All of Complainant's products and services are associated with its BROADCOM
trademark.
Respondent's domain name creates a
likelihood of confusion with Complainant's BROADCOM trademark. Respondents cannot avoid a finding of
confusing similarity simply by tacking on a generic geographic identifier such
as "‑usa,"
nor can they do so by tacking on the generic suffix
".com."
Respondents have made no demonstrable use
or preparations to use <broad com‑usa.com>,
or a name corresponding to it, in connection with a legitimate and
bona fide offering of goods and services, but are simply squatting
on the
domain name.
Any actual use by Respondent of <broadcom‑usa.com> or the
corresponding term BROADCOM would be an infringement of Complainant's rights in
its BROADCOM trademark. Such
infringement forecloses any possibility of a legitimate use by Respondents.
Respondent is not commonly known by
BROADCOM, but is instead commonly known by the name Ayers International Group,
Inc.
Complainant has never licensed or
otherwise authorized Respondent to use its BROADCOM trademark, or <broadcom‑usa.com>.
Respondent intentionally registered <broadcom‑usa.com> to
prevent Complainant from using its BROADCOM trademark in a corresponding domain
name (<broad com‑usa.com>)
identifying the fact that Complainant's corporate headquarters is located in
the United States.
In the broadband communication field,
Complainant's trademark BROADCOM is so obviously connected with Complainant
that use by someone
with no connection to Complainant suggests bad faith.
Warehousing of a domain name that
corresponds to a well known trademark such as BROADCOM, by itself, is evidence
of bad faith.
B. Respondent
Broadcom Voice and Data, Inc.
("Broadcom Voice and Data") was incorporated under that name in the
State of New York on or
about January 13, 1992.
The present owner of Broadcom Voice and
Data is a Mr. Rosaleen O'Leary, who has been operating the business by the name
of "Broadcom
Voice and Data, Inc." since January of 1992, in the
following activities: contracting for
voice and data service installations, cabling for LAN and WAN implementations
on customer sites, and performing moves,
adds and changes to client systems.
Broadcom Voice and Data requested
Respondent to register the domain name <broadcom‑usa.com>
on behalf of Broadcom Voice and Data, Inc. as a part of Respondent's comprehensive
internet technology services to Broadcom Voice
and Data.
Mr. Bryan Ayers has been operating
Respondent's business under the name of Ayers International Group, Inc. since
January of 1994. In this capacity he
has engaged in the following activities as a part of the operation of the
business: technology project
management, technology consulting, network design and implementation, and
internet consulting. His business has provided
comprehensive information technology and internet technology services to many
companies, including Broadcom
Voice and Data, Inc.
As part of its services to Broadcom Voice
and Data, Respondent registered the domain name <broadcom‑usa.com> on behalf of Broadcom Voice and
Data, Inc. and at the request of its owners.
Respondent has been actively preparing a
website for <broadcom‑usa.com>
for several months prior to May 2, 2002.
Mount Sinai Medical Center of
New York City ("Mt. Sinai") is a client of Broadcom Voice and
Data. Broadcom Voice and Data, Inc. was
requested by Mt. Sinai to register, prepare and operate a website which
would include some capabilities
that would assist the interaction of the
medical center with Broadcom Voice and Data.
Staff of Mt. Sinai engaged in planning activities with Broadcom
Voice and Data with respect to the contents and operation of the website. Both the request and the planning activities
occurred at least as early as February 2002.
Broadcom Voice and Data and Respondent
have been engaged in planning activities for the website at least as early as
March 2002. Respondent has been
actively engaged in the preparation of the website at least as early as April
2002.
Complainant's goods are dramatically
different from the services provided by Broadcom Voice and Data, Inc. There is thus no confusing similarity
between Respondent's <broadcom‑usa.com>
and Complainant's BROADCOM mark.
The continuing operations of Broadcom
Voice and Data since 1992, including specific detailed planning and preparation
of a website
in conjunction with Mt. Sinai, the latter beginning at least
as early as February 2002, demonstrate that Respondent has engaged in
preparations to use the <broadcom‑usa.com>
domain name in connection with a legitimate and bona fide offering of
goods and services.
Neither Respondent nor any of its
associates (1) registered or acquired the domain name primarily to sell, rent
or otherwise transfer
it to the Complainant or a competitor for valuable
consideration in excess of the out-of-pocket costs directly related to the
domain
name, (2) registered the domain name to prevent Complainant from
reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name, (3) registered
the domain
name to disrupt the business of the Complainant or a competitor, or (4)
attempted to attract for commercial gain internet
users to their website or
other online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the mark of
Complainant as to the source,
sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of such
website or location or of a product or service on such website.
C. Additional Submissions
Complainant filed an additional
submission after the time for doing so expired. Respondent objected to Complainant's additional submission but
tendered one of its own and requested that it be considered if Complainant's
were. The Panel exercises its
discretion to consider both additional submissions.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Respondent's
Response was filed 28 days after the time allowed for doing so expired. The Panel is mindful of the benefits of
expedited resolution of domain name disputes, and had it received this case
during that 28-day
period it might well have declined to consider the
Response. The Panel received this case
on July 12, however, with not only the Response but the two, also untimely additional
submissions. No delay or other harm
will result from the Panel considering all of the late submissions and it
elects to do so.
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 or Confusingly
Similar Policy
¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant owns numerous U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office (“USPTO”) registrations for its BROADCOM mark, including Reg.
No. 2,132,930,
Reg. No. 2,392,925, and Reg. No. 2,326,387, among others. Complainant has been the exclusive user of
the BROADCOM mark in the U.S. beginning as early as November 1994, and has been
using the
mark continuously ever since.
Respondent’s <broadcom-usa.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant's BROADCOM trademark. The
dominant part of Respondent’s domain name reflects Complainant’s BROADCOM mark,
and the addition of the geographic qualifier “-usa”
fails to make the domain
name distinct. See Am. Online, Inc. v. Asian On-Line This Domain For Sale, FA
94636 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 17, 2000) (finding that the domain names, which
consist of “ao-l” and geographic location are confusingly
similar to Complainant’s
mark); see also AXA China Region Ltd. v.
KANNET Ltd., D2000-1377 (WIPO Nov. 29, 2000) (finding that common
geographic qualifiers or generic nouns can rarely be relied upon to
differentiate
the mark if the other elements of the domain name comprise a mark
or marks in which another party has rights); see also JVC Americas Corp. v. Macafee, CPR006 (CPR Nov. 10, 2000)
(finding that the domain name registered by Respondent,
<jvc-america.com>, is substantially similar
to, and nearly identical to
Complainant's JVC mark).
Likewise, the addition of a top-level
domain name such as “.com” is irrelevant when determining whether a domain name
is identical
to Complainant’s mark. See Snow Fun, Inc. v. O'Connor, FA 96578
(Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 8, 2001) (finding that the domain name
<termquote.com> is identical to Complainant’s TERMQUOTE
mark); 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).
Respondent asserts that the goods and
services of the parties as represented by their respective marks are so
different as to eliminate
the possibility of confusion. Where the products of the parties involved
are not identical, the likelihood of confusion issue extends to whether the
public would
"probably assume" that the product or service
represented by a name is associated with the source of a different product
represented by a similar name or mark. Scott Paper Co. v. Scott's Liquid Gold, Inc.[1978] USCA3 1009; ,
589 F.2d 1225, 1229 (C.A. Del., 1978).
Similarity or dissimilarity of the products themselves is only one of
several factors to be considered.
Others include (1) the strength of Plaintiff’s mark; (2) the degree of
similarity between marks; (3) the relationship between parties’
channels of
trade; (4) the relationship between parties’ advertising; (5) the degree of
care exercised by relevant consumers; (6)
evidence of actual confusion, and (7)
the intent of the allegedly infringing user.
Id.; Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492, 495 (2d
Cir. 1961). Because the website under
consideration by Respondents, Broadcom Voice and Data, and Mt. Sinai is not yet
developed it is difficult
to assess exactly how these parties intend to use <broadcom-usa.com> in connection
with it. Nevertheless, on balance the
similarity in names coupled with the fact that an Internet presence is intended
by the Respondent's group,
leads the Panel to conclude that the names are and
will be confusingly similar notwithstanding some difference in products or
services. Considering the strength of
Complainant's BROADCOM mark in digital broadband communications, it is likely
that Internet users will
be attracted to the <broadcom-usa.com> site in the belief that it is affiliated
with or has the endorsement of Complainant.
Based upon the foregoing, the Panel finds
and determines that <broadcom-usa.com>
is identical or confusingly similar to the mark BROADCOM, in which Complainant has
rights.
Rights and Legitimate
Interests Policy
¶ 4(a)(ii).
Broadcom Voice and Data is not a
Respondent. According to the report
from Register.com, the registrant of <broadcom-usa.com>,
and thus the Respondent in these proceedings, is Ayers International Group,
Inc. Broadcom Voice and Data may have
used the BROADCOM name in connection with its operations, but the only material
involvement of Respondent
with the mark BROADCOM was to register <broadcom-usa.com>
in its name. It, not Broadcom Voice and
Data, is the registrant for the name, and this case is determined upon that
basis. The authority asserted in
Respondent's additional submission is distinguishable from this case. In SMS
Demag AG v. Seung‑Gon, D2000-1434 (WIPO Jan. 19, 2001), the parties
agreed that the proper Respondent was an individual rather than the company in
whose
name he apparently registered the domain name. In Chantelle v. Anhalt,
D2001-1181 (WIPO Dec. 20, 2001), the corporate vice president who registered
the domain in his own name rather than the company's
was in business with his
mother in that company. Here, three
separate and distinct entities, Broadcom Voice and Data, Mt. Sinai, and
Respondent, related with each other only by a
business association, were
apparently to be involved in some way in the proposed website. Respondent is engaged in Internet and IT
business pursuits in its own right and as the registrant of <broadcom-usa.com> has the right
to control its disposition and the uses to which it is put.
Complainant has not licensed or
authorized Respondent in any other way to use either its mark BROADCOM or <broadcom-usa.com>. Because Complainant's mark is
internationally established and Respondent is not a licensee or authorized
agent of Complainant, Respondent
is prohibited from establishing rights or
legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(ii).
Respondent has made no demonstrable use,
or preparations to use, the <broadcom-usa.com>
domain name in connection with a legitimate and bona fide offering of goods
and services in its own right pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i). Rather, Respondent has done nothing more
than register it, purportedly for Broadcom Voice and Data, and has consulted
with Broadcom
Voice and Data about a website somehow involving Broadcom Voice
and Data and Mt. Sinai. This is
insufficient to demonstrate any right or legitimate interest in respect of the
domain name for Respondent. See 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”); see also Ritz-Carlton Hotel v. Club Car
Executive, D2000-0611 (WIPO Sept. 18, 2000) (finding that prior to any
notice of the dispute, the Respondent has not used the domain names
in
connection with any type of bona fide offering of goods and services).
Additionally, as Complainant points out,
any actual use by Respondent of the disputed domain name would be an infringement
of Complainant's
statutory rights in its BROADCOM trademark. Such resulting infringement forecloses any
possibility of a legitimate use by Respondent as a matter of law. If Respondent ever uses the <broadcom-usa.com> website it
will be opportunistically benefiting and trading on Complainant’s established
mark. Such use is not in connection
with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i), nor does
it represent a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant
to Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Ticketmaster
Corp. v. DiscoverNet, Inc., D2001-0252 (WIPO Apr. 9, 2001) (finding no
rights or legitimate interests where Respondent generated commercial gain by
intentionally
and misleadingly diverting users away from Complainant's site to
a competing website); see also Telstra
Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallow, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) (finding
(i) the fact that Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted
Respondent to use
any of its trademarks and (ii) the fact that the word TELSTRA
appears to be an invented word, and as such is not one traders would
legitimately choose unless seeking to create an impression of an association
with Complainant, demonstrate that Respondent lacks
rights or legitimate
interests in the domain name).
Respondent is not commonly known by the
“Broadcom” name. On the contrary,
Respondent is commonly known by the names “Ayers International Group, Inc.” and
perhaps “Bryan Ayers.” 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 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).
Based upon the foregoing, the Panel finds
and determines that Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect
of <broadcom-usa.com>.
Registration and Use in
Bad Faith
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
Because of the considerable and
well-known presence of Complainant in the digital broadband communications
industry, the general notoriety
of its BROADCOM mark, and its registration of
BROADCOM on the USPTO’s Principal Register, Respondent is charged with notice
of Complainant’s
preexisting rights in the BROADCOM mark. Respondent’s pursuit of a registration of a
domain name reflecting a mark in which Complainant had such clearly established
rights
at the time constitutes 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 Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, [2002] USCA9 115; 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) (finding that "[w]here
an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be similar to another, one can
infer an intent to confuse"); 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); see also Victoria’s Cyber Secret Ltd. P’ship v. V
Secret Catalogue, Inc., 161 F.Supp.2d
1339, 1349 (S.D.Fla. 2001) (noting that “a Principal Register registration [of
a trademark or service mark] is constructive
notice of a claim of ownership so
as to eliminate any defense of good faith adoption” pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
§ 1072).
Notwithstanding the presence and history
of Broadcom Voice and Data among Respondent's affiliates, the Respondents'
registration of
<broadcom-usa.com>,
which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s established mark, represents an
opportunistic attempt eventually to trade on the goodwill
established by
Complainant in its BROADCOM mark. The
Respondents' business purpose and the function and nature of the proposed
website as described in the Response are unclear, but
it appears from the
affidavits attached to the Response that Respondent's registration of that
domain at the request of Broadcom
Voice and Data was part of a plan to
register, prepare and operate a website for a business or commercial venture of
some sort, and
given that Respondent and Broadcom Voice and Data had either
actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's BROADCOM mark, it
appears
that Respondent registered <broadcom-usa.com>
to use the fame of Complainant’s mark to the advantage of it and its
affiliates in this undertaking. The
name they chose for their website will, for commercial gain, inevitably attract
Internet users searching for Complainant’s products,
and this evidences bad
faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See
Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4,
2000) (finding that the “domain names are so obviously connected with the
Complainants that the use or
registration by anyone other than Complainants
suggests ‘opportunistic bad faith’”); see
also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000)
(finding bad faith registration and use where it is “inconceivable that the
respondent could make
any active use of the disputed domain names without
creating a false impression of association with the Complainant”)
Based upon the foregoing, the Panel finds
and determines that the Respondents registered and are using <broadcom-usa.com> in bad faith.
DECISION
Based upon the foregoing Findings and
Discussion, the relief sought in the Complaint is granted. The domain-name <broadcom-usa.com> is ordered transferred to
Complainant.
Honorable Charles A. Kuechenmeister
(Ret.)
Dated:
July 24, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1264.html