Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Pepsico, Inc. v. Jose Thompson d/b/a
Eroster
Claim Number: FA0206000114678
PARTIES
Complainant
is Pepsico, Inc., Purchase, NY
(“Complainant”) represented by Georges
Nahitchevansky, of Fross Zelnick
Lehrman & Zissu P.C. Respondent
is Jose Thompson d/b/a Eroster, Decatur, GA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <pepsico.us>,
registered with Newdentity.com d/b/a
Universal Registration Services.
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.
The
Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on June 24, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on June 25, 2002.
On
July 1, 2002, Newdentity.com d/b/a Universal Registration Services confirmed by
e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <pepsico.us>
is registered with Newdentity.com d/b/a Universal Registration Services and
that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Newdentity.com d/b/a Universal Registration
Services has verified that Respondent is bound by the Newdentity.com d/b/a
Universal Registration
Services registration agreement and has thereby agreed
to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with
the
U. S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On
July 1, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of July 22,
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
usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “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
August 1, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the
Honorable Charles K.
McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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. Therefore, the Panel may
issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the
Policy, the 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A.
Complainant
The
<pepsico.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
PEPSI mark and identical to Complainant’s PEPSICO trade name.
Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the <pepsico.us> domain
name.
Respondent
registered and used the <pepsico.us> domain name in bad
faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant is the owner of the
world-famous PEPSI mark. The mark was
first used for soft drinks in 1911 as a shortened version of the PEPSI-COLA
mark that first denoted Complainant’s soft
drinks in 1898.
Complainant owns numerous world-wide
trademark registrations for the PEPSI mark and related logos. The PEPSI mark is heavily advertised to the
general public in international magazines, newspapers, television, radio,
out-door signs,
and point-of-purchase displays. As a result of Complainant’s extensive, continuous use of the
PEPSI mark to denote its established soft drinks for over ninety-one
years, the
mark has become famous throughout the world.
Complainant operates under the PEPSICO
trade name, which has been in use since 1965, and owns rights in domain names
that contain
the trade name (e.g., <pepsico.com> and
<pepsicojobs.com>). Complainant
also operates websites located at <pepsi.com>, <pepsiworld.com>,
<pepsibusiness.com>, <pepsiretail.com>,
<pepsifountain.com>
and <pepsivending.com>.
Respondent registered the <pepsico.us>
domain name on April 24, 2002.
Respondent uses the domain name to divert Internet traffic to a website
that contains links to beverage and soft drink related websites,
among
others. These websites have no
connection with Complainant or Complainant’s PEPSI mark. Also, upon entering the <pepsico.us>
website, the Internet user is confronted with pop-up advertisements.
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 or is being used in bad faith.
Given
the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
(“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw
upon UDRP precedent as
applicable in rendering its decision.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established its rights in
the PEPSI mark through world-wide trademark registration and continuous use of
the mark
since 1911.
Respondent’s <pepsico.us>
domain name contains Complainant’s entire PEPSI mark with the addition of the
“co” suffix, which is a common abbreviation for company. A generic suffix, such as “co,” does little
to detract from the dominating presence of Complainant’s famous PEPSI mark. Therefore, Respondent’s <pepsico.us>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PEPSI mark. See Kelson Physician Partners, Inc. v. Mason, CPR003 (CPR 2000)
(finding that <kelsonmd.com> is identical or confusingly similar to
Complainant’s federally registered service
mark, “Kelson”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO
Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that adding the suffixes "502" and
"520" to the ICQ trademark does
little to reduce the potential for
confusion).
Furthermore, Complainant has conducted a
substantial amount of business under the PEPSICO trade name since 1965. Therefore, Complainant has common law rights
in the distinct PEPSICO trade name. See
Keppel TatLee Bank v. Taylor,
D2001-0168 (WIPO Mar. 28, 2001) (“[O]n account of long and substantial use of
the said name [<keppelbank.com>] in connection
with its banking business,
it has acquired rights under the common law); see also Fishtech v. Rossiter, FA 92976 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Mar. 10, 2000) (finding that the Complainant has common law rights
in the mark FISHTECH which it has used
since 1982). Respondent’s <pepsico.us> domain name is identical
to Complainant’s PEPSICO trade name because top-level domains, such as “.us,”
are inconsequential in a Policy
¶
4(a)(i) “identical” analysis. 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
(gTLD) “.com” after the
name POMELLATO is not relevant).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy
¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent did not submit a Response in
this proceeding. Also, Complainant
actively protects its valuable PEPSI mark and PEPSICO trade name and has found
no evidence of Respondent’s rights
or legitimate interests in the <pepsico.us>
domain name. Therefore, due to the lack
of an answer to Complainant’s assertions that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in the <pepsico.us> domain name, it may be
presumed that Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in the
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, because Respondent failed
to submit a Response, the Panel may make all reasonable inferences in favor of
Complainant. See Vertical
Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. Webnet-Marketing, Inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000)
(failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations
of Complainant
to be deemed true).
Respondent uses the <pepsico.us> domain name as
an address for a website that offers links to a variety of beverage and soft
drink related websites. The links have
no specific connection to Complainant or Complainant’s PEPSI mark and PEPSICO
trade name, but the links are adverse
to Complainant’s business since they bear
a general relation to Complainant’s products.
Therefore, Respondent is not using the <pepsico.us> domain
name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See N. Coast Med., Inc. v. Allegro Med., FA
95541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 2, 2000) (finding no bona fide use where Respondent
used the domain name to divert Internet users
to its competing website).
The level of notoriety and fame that Complainant’s PEPSI
mark and PEPSICO trade name enjoys, due to Complainant’s popular soft drink
products, creates a presumption that no one else could be commonly known by the
mark or the trade name. In fact,
Respondent is not referred to as PEPSICO or <pepsico.us> and never
received a license or permission by Complainant to use the PEPSICO trade name
or PEPSI mark. Moreover, Respondent
does not own any trademarks or service marks that reflect the <pepsico.us>
domain name. Therefore, Respondent has
no rights or legitimate interests in the <pepsico.us> domain name
pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
See Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de
Boer, D2000-1397 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate
interests where one “would be hard pressed to find a person who
may show a
right or legitimate interest” in a domain name containing Complainant's
distinct and famous NIKE trademark); 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).
Respondent’s <pepsico.us> domain name contains
pop-up advertisements, which presumably benefit Respondent financially. Also, Complainant discovered that Respondent
derives profit from an affiliate system that pays for web traffic generated to
specific
websites. Since Respondent’s <pepsico.us>
domain name contains links to websites of entities that are known for providing
commissions for click-through traffic, it is reasonable
to infer that
Respondent profits from use of those links.
Hence, Respondent’s commercial use of Complainant’s PEPSI mark and
PEPSICO trade name in the domain name does not comport with Policy
¶
4(c)(iv). See Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc.,
FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s commercial
use of the domain name to confuse and divert Internet
traffic is not a legitimate
use of the domain name); see also 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).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been
satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides
examples of circumstances that, when present, will satisfy the “bad faith”
requirement of Policy
¶ 4(a)(iii).
Policy ¶ 4(b) states, however, that the enumerated examples are provided
“without limitation.” Thus, the Panel
is permitted to look outside the scope of Policy ¶ 4(b) to the totality of
circumstances in order to make a bad faith
determination. See Cellular One Group v. Brien, D2000-0028 (WIPO Mar. 10, 2000)
(finding that the criteria specified in 4(b) of the UDRP is not an exhaustive
list of bad faith
evidence); see also Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb.
Forum May 18, 2000) (finding that in determining if a domain name has been
registered in bad faith, the Panel
must look at the “totality of
circumstances”).
Complainant’s PEPSI mark is
internationally famous and is associated with Complainant’s soft drinks
world-wide. It is difficult to imagine
that Respondent was unaware of Complainant’s rights in the PEPSI mark and
PEPSICO trade name since Respondent
uses the domain name to divert Internet
traffic to alternate soft drink related websites. Therefore, Respondent’s registration of the domain name, despite
a minimum of constructive notice of Complainant’s rights, 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).
Respondent uses the <pepsico.us>
domain name to derive financial gain by way of pop-up advertisements and
commissions through affiliate website systems.
The domain name contains Complainant’s entire trade name and is a
confusing variation of Complainant’s PEPSI mark. Therefore, Internet users may be confused as to Complainant’s
association with Respondent’s <pepsico.us> website. Thus, Respondent uses the <pepsico.us>
domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 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 Respondent directed Internet users
seeking Complainant’s site
to its own website for commercial gain); see also
ESPN, Inc. v. Ballerini, FA 95410
(Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 15, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent linked the
domain name to another website located at
<iwin.com>, where Respondent
received a portion of the advertising revenue from site by directing Internet
traffic to the site;
thus, Respondent used a domain name to attract Internet
users, for commercial gain).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶
4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
DECISION
Having established all three elements
required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief
shall be hereby
GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the
domain name <pepsico.us> be TRANSFERRED from
Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr.
(Ret.), Panelist
Dated: August 7, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1363.html