Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Byers Chevrolet, LLC v. Travis Van Ness
dba PlushGreen
Claim Number: FA0206000114670
PARTIES
Complainant
is Byers Chevrolet, LLC, Columbus,
Ohio, USA (“Complainant”) represented by David
M. Karr, of Carlile Patchen &
Murphy LLP. Respondent is Travis Van Ness d/b/a PlushGreen, Groveport, Ohio, USA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <byerschevrolet.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 the Panelist in
this proceeding.
Houston
Putnam Lowry is the Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on June 21, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on June 24, 2002.
On
June 25, 2002, Register.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <byerschevrolet.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
June 25, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of July 15,
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@byerschevrolet.com by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 16, 2002.
Complainant’s
additional response was received in a timely manner on July 19, 2002. Respondent’s additional response was
received in a timely manner on July 23, 2002.
On July 26, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to
have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Houston Putnam
Lowry as the Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
Byers
Chevrolet, Inc., the predecessor of Byers Chevrolet, LLC (“Complainant”), filed
its Articles of Incorporation with the Ohio
Secretary of State on January 9,
1929. Complainant has continuously
conducted business under the BYERS CHEVROLET corporate and tradenames since
that time. BYERS CHEVROLET has been an
active, registered Ohio tradename owned by Complainant since December 29,
1986. Complainant has conducted
business as an automobile dealership under that registered tradename since the
date of registration thereof. A copy of
the Registration Certificate with the Ohio Secretary of State was attached as
“Exhibit B” to the Complaint.
Byers
Chevrolet is part of a multi-faceted automobile sales, service and marketing organization
in central Ohio operated by the Byers
family.
Byers Holding, Inc., formed in 1932, and Geo. Byers Sons Holding, Inc.,
formed in 1929, directly or indirectly operate numerous automobile
dealerships
in central Ohio, including Byers Chrysler, Byers Chevrolet, Byers Mazda-Subaru,
Byers Dublin Chevrolet, Byers Dublin
Dodge, Byers Imports, Byers Volvo, and
Byers Car Rentals. All of these
tradenames are registered of record with the Ohio Secretary of State.
The
domain name registered by Respondent, <byerschevrolet.com>, is
identical to and confusingly similar to the foregoing BYERS and BYERS CHEVROLET
tradenames registered and used by Complainant.
The Respondent has refused to transfer this domain name to the
Complainant. ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(1); ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
B.
Respondent
In
his Response, Respondent claims Respondent purchased <byerschevrolet.com>
as a memorial to his belated great-grandfather, Herbert Van Ness. Respondent conceived the <byerschevrolet.com>
domain and provided material for the web-site based on personal experiences and
conversations that had taken place between Respondent
and Respondent’s
great-grandfather.
Reading
the web site text that was attached to the Response (which differed slightly
from the Response), Respondent claims his great-grandfather
(his name was not
disclosed on the web site) was a fan of June Byers (a female wrestler from
circa 1955). He was such a fan he named
his “favorite beat-up truck” (no model specified) “June”. Respondent has carried on the family
tradition by naming his trucks (brands unspecified) “June” as well. Pictures of the trucks were not provided by
either party.
C.
Additional Submissions
The
parties exchanged documents about the veracity of Respondent’s claim the web
site was a memorial for his great grandfather.
FINDINGS
Byers
Chevrolet, Inc., the predecessor of Complainant, filed its Articles of
Incorporation with the Ohio Secretary of State on January
9, 1929 (although no
copy of such articles was attached to the Complaint). Complainant has continuously conducted business under the BYERS
CHEVROLET corporate and tradenames since that time. BYERS CHEVROLET has been an active, registered Ohio tradename
owned by Complainant since December 29, 1986 (although this registration
claims
the “Byers Chevrolet” name was used by Geo. Byers Sons, Inc. only since
December 28, 1986 and does not explain how these rights
got transferred to
Complainant from Geo. Byers Sons, Inc.).
Nevertheless,
the Panel finds Complainant has conducted business as an automobile dealership
under that registered tradename. It is
a common practice for Chevrolet car dealers to be known as their name, followed
by the word Chevrolet (such as Byers Chevrolet
in this case).
Byers
Chevrolet is part of a multi-faceted automobile sales, service and marketing
organization in central Ohio operated by the Byers
family. Byers Holding, Inc., formed in 1932, and
Geo. Byers Sons Holding, Inc., formed in 1929, operate numerous automobile
dealerships in
central Ohio, including Byers Chrysler, Byers Chevrolet, Byers
Mazda-Subaru, Byers Dublin Chevrolet, Byers Dublin Dodge, Byers Imports,
Byers
Volvo, and Byers Car Rentals. While
Respondent claims he resided in Athens County (presumably in Ohio) at the time <byerschevrolet.com>
was registered (March 29, 1997 per Respondent’s Exhibit A), it is clear the
“Byers Chevrolet” mark was in use at that time and registered
in Ohio.
The
domain name registered by Respondent, <byerschevrolet.com>, is
identical to and confusingly similar to the foregoing BYERS and BYERS CHEVROLET
tradenames registered and used by Complainant.
The fact a disclaimer is contained on the web site suggests the question
has arisen so frequently that it needed to be addressed on
an on-going basis.
Respondent’s
web site contained an open ended offer to sell the web site on May 29, 2002
(and very probably on other days as well).
DISCUSSION
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 and/or Confusingly Similar
Respondent’s domain name is identical to
Complainant’s tradename because spaces are impermissible in the second level
domain and the
generic top-level domain “.com” is of no consequence. See
Hannover Ruckversicherungs-AG v. Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7,
2002) (finding <hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as
spaces are impermissible
in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as
‘.com’ or ‘.net’ is required in domain names”); see also Wembley Nat’l Stadium Ltd. v. Thomson,
D2000-1233 (WIPO Nov. 16, 2000) (finding that the domain name <wembleystadium.net>
is identical to the WEMBLEY STADIUM 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); see
also 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).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent
registered the <byerschevrolet.com> domain name (March 2, 2000
according to Complainant’s Exhibit G and March 29, 1997 according to
Respondent’s Exhibit A; the analysis
is the same with either date). Since that time, Respondent has developed
two different uses for the domain name.
First,
Respondent attached a website to the domain name that offered the domain name
for sale. Second, Respondent currently
uses the domain name to resolve to a website that contains links to
Respondent’s “favorite Adult sites”,
inter alia.
Neither
use of the domain name represents a use in connection with a bona fide offering
of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(i), nor a noncommercial or fair
use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). 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);
see also Skipton Bldg. Soc’y v. Colman, D2000-1217
(WIPO Dec. 1, 2000) (finding no rights in a domain name where Respondent
offered the infringing domain name for sale and
the evidence suggests that
anyone approaching this domain name through the world wide web would be
"misleadingly" diverted
to other sites); see also MatchNet plc v. MAC Trading, D2000-0205
(WIPO May 11, 2000) (finding that it is not a bona fide offering of goods or
services to use a domain name for commercial
gain by attracting Internet users
to third party sites offering sexually explicit and pornographic material,
where such use is calculated
to mislead consumers and tarnish the Complainant’s
mark).
There
was no suggestion the domain name was used solely (or even primarily) for email
services.
Respondent is not commonly known by the <byerschevrolet.com>
domain name. Respondent has never been
associated with the domain name and has no rights of legitimate interests in
the domain name. Respondent has no
legitimate rights and interests in the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
See 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); 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).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Not
only did Respondent initially resolve the domain name to a website that offered
the domain name for sale, Respondent communicated
to Complainant’s attorney
that “If your client wishes to purchase the said domain, then I would have to
contemplate an offer and
make a business decision based on such an offer.” Respondent’s behavior of registering the
domain name and establishing an intent to sell the domain name warrants a
finding of bad
faith registration and use. 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 Little Six, Inc v. Domain
For Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2001) (finding Respondent's
offer to sell the domain name at issue to Complainant was evidence
of bad
faith); see also Pocatello Idaho Auditorium Dist. v. CES Mktg. Group,
Inc., FA 103186 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2002) ("[w]hat makes an
offer to sell a domain [name] bad faith is some accompanying evidence
that the
domain name was registered because of its value that is in some way dependent
on the trademark of another, and then an offer
to sell it to the trademark
owner or a competitor of the trademark owner").
Furthermore,
Respondent’s second use of the domain name linking Internet users to other
websites, including pornographic websites,
constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶
4(b)(iv). Respondent presumably
benefits from its use of the domain name and creates consumer confusion because
the domain name is identical
to Complainant’s BYERS CHEVROLET tradename, See
State Fair of Texas v. Granbury.com,
FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent
registered the domain name <bigtex.net> to infringe
on Complainant’s
goodwill and attract Internet users to Respondent’s website); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli,
FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the
Respondent directed Internet users seeking the Complainant’s
site to its own
website for commercial gain); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Northway, FA 95464 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Oct. 11, 2000) (finding that the Respondent registered the domain name
<statefarmnews.com> in bad
faith because Respondent intended to use
Complainant’s marks to attract the public to the web site without permission
from Complainant).
Frankly,
Respondent’s claims about the use of the domain name are not credible. It is very odd indeed to erect a web site in
someone’s honor and then fail to mention their name. Such factors weigh heavily on the Panel’s mind and suggest the
claimed reasons for registration and use are a pretext for some other
purpose.
The
fact Respondent had a disclaimer on the site to differentiate himself from
Complainant surely must indicate Respondent either
knew of Complainant’s marks
and/or there was confusion about who operated the domain.
DECISION
The <byerschevrolet.com>
domain name shall be forthwith transferred from Respondent to
Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry,
Panelist and Chartered
Arbitrator
Dated: July 30, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1319.html