Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
DECISION
Quality Custom
Cabinetry, Inc. v. Cabinet Wholesalers, Inc.
Claim Number:
FA0207000115349
PARTIES
Complainant is Quality Custom
Cabinetry, New Holland, PA (“Complainant”). Respondent is Cabinet Wholesalers Inc., Lebanon, NJ (“Respondent”) represented by Robert
Mahoney, of Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus PA.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <qualitycustomcabinetry.com>,
registered with Network Solutions.
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.
Judge Richard B. Wickersham,
(Ret.) as Panelist
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the
National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on July 16, 2002; the
Forum received
a hard copy of the Complaint on July 17, 2002.
On July 22, 2002, Network Solutions
confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <qualitycustomcabinetry.com>
is registered with Network Solutions and that the Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Network
Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions
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 July 22, 2002, a Notification of
Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement
Notification”), setting
a deadline of August 12, 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@qualitycustomcabinetry.com
by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and
determined to be complete on August 9, 2002.
On August 28, 2002, pursuant to
Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the
Forum appointed Judge
Richard B. Wickersham, (Ret.), as the single Panelist.
RELIEF
SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name
be transferred from Respondent to
Complainant.
PARTIES’
CONTENTIONS
Complainant
A.
Respondent has
registered a domain name that is identical to a trademark owned by Complainant.
1.
Complainant,
Quality Custom Cabinetry, Inc. (“QCC”), is the owner of the QUALITY CUSTOM
CABINETRY trademark for the manufacture of
cabinets.
2.
Complainant has
registered QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY (Stylized) as a trademark for the
manufacture of cabinets in Pennsylvania, and
QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY as a
trademark for the manufacture of cabinets in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
3.
Complainant has
had common law rights in the QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY trademark since it first
began using the QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY
trademark with the manufacture of
cabinets in 1995. QUALITY CUSTOM
CABINTERY has acquired distinctiveness through close association with the high
quality cabinet products sold by QCC.
4.
Since 1995,
Complainant has continuously used the QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY trademark with
the manufacture of cabinets.
5.
On July 24, 1999,
Respondent, Cabinet Wholesalers Inc. (“CWI”) registered the <qualitycustomcabinetry.com>
domain name for a period of two years.
On July 25, 2001, Respondent renewed the <qualitycustomcabinetry.com> domain name for another two
years.
6.
Respondent’s <qualitycustomcabinetry.com>
domain is identical to Complainant’s QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY trademark.
B.
Respondent
has not used <qualitycustomcabinetry.com> or the QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY
trademark in connection with a bona fide
offering of goods or services outside
of Respondent’s now terminated status as Complainant’s dealer.
7.
Respondent
was a dealer for Complainant from 1987 to December 31, 2000 and did business
under that name at all times relevant to this
proceeding.
8.
As a QCC
dealer, Respondent sold cabinet products bearing the QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY
trademark. As a general rule, dealers
are not considered to have the right to register the domain names that are
similar or identical to the
products that they are dealing. Motorola, Inc. v. NewGate Internet, Inc.,
D2000-0079 (WIPO Apr. 20, 2000).
9.
At no time
during the period when Respondent was a QCC dealer was Respondent granted
rights to use the QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY trademark
as its own trademark. Rather, Respondent had an implied license
from Complainant to use the QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY trademark in connection
with the sale
of Complainant’s product line.
When Complainant terminated Respondent as a QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY
dealer, Respondent ceased to have any right to use the QUALITY
CUSTOM CABINETRY
trademark in any fashion.
10.
On July 25,
2001, when Respondent renewed its registration for <qualitycustomcabinetry.com>, Respondent was no longer a
dealer for Complainant, nor authorized to sell QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY
products, and therefore had no
legitimate rights to the renewal or use of the
QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY trademark or the <qualitycustomcabinetry.com>
domain name for any purpose.
11.
Respondent
has never been known by <qualitycustomcabinetry.com>
or any name similar to the QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY trademark.
12.
At no time
did Respondent use the QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY trademark or a trademark using
the words QUALITY, CUSTOM, and CABINETRY
in association with the <qualitycustomcabinetry.com>
domain, nor did it seek to register any such trademark or otherwise acquire
rights in it.
13.
Respondent
is not making, and has not made in the past, a legitimate commercial or fair
use of the <qualitycustomcabinetry.com>
domain name.
C.
Respondent
has registered and used the <qualitycustomcabinetry.com> domain name in
bad faith because Respondent registered and
used the domain name to disrupt
Complainant’s business and to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to
Respondent’s web site,
by creating a likelihood of confusion with the
Complainant’s QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY mark as to the source of Complainant’s
cabinet
products. In addition, when
confronted by Complainant, Registrant offered to sell the
<qualitycustomcabinetry.com> domain name to Complainant
for an exorbitant
price, including an agreement by Complainant to not terminate Respondent as a
dealer for ten (10) years. As further
evidence of bad faith, Respondent illegally displayed Complainant’s copyrighted
photographs on its website that can be
accessed through the
<qualitycustomcabinetry.com> domain.
14. Respondent
is currently a direct competitor of QCC, as both companies sell cabinet
products.
15.
At no time
during the period in which Respondent was a QCC dealer did Complainant
authorize Respondent to register the <qualitycustomcabinetry.com>
domain name, nor did Complainant have knowledge that Respondent had registered
and was using the domain name prior to November 5,
1999.
B. Respondent
A.
Complainant
has no trademark rights in the term QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY and therefore,
Respondent’s domain name for the same term
is not likely to confuse consumers
that the parties’ goods or services come from a common source.
Complainant
possesses neither federal nor common law rights to the term QUALITY CUSTOM
CABINETRY. As to federal rights,
Complainant abandoned its own application for federal registration of the term
QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY as of
February 2002.
Complainant’s abandonment arose due to a failure to respond to the
Trademark Office’s Official Action, wherein Complainant’s application
for
trademark protection of the term QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY was refused on
the basis that said mark was likely to be confused with three prior
registrations incorporating the terms “QUALITY” and/or “CABINETRY.” It is evident from the existence of these
other “cabinet” – formative marks that the term QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY is not
subject
to exclusive appropriation by any given trader in the marketplace, and
therefore, it is unlikely that consumers of such goods would
mistakenly confuse
the source of one cabinet maker’s goods with those of another. Furthermore, the Official Action in Annex 2
indicates that, even if Complainant had sought to preserve its federal
application by
responding to the Trademark Examiner’s refusal to register the
mark, the Examiner required a disclaimer of the entire term “QUALITY
CUSTOM
CABINETRY” because the wording is “descriptive or generic for cabinetry made or
finished to order, and the word QUALITY ascribes
laudatory attributes [of] the
goods/services.” As the Examiner
indicated, the wording is alternatively descriptive or generic. Generic terms are incapable of identifying
an applicant’s goods and distinguishing them from the goods of others, and
therefore, cannot
ever function as a trademark. See, In re Gould Paper Corp., [1987] USCAFED 724; 834 F.2d 1017
(Fed.Cir. 1987); see also In re Pennzoil Prod. Co., 20 USPQ2d
1753 (TTAB) 1991). Accordingly,
Complainant cannot claim rights to a generic term as a matter of federal law or
common law.
As a matter of
common law, Complainant alleges that the term QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY has
become distinctive of its goods and services.
Assuming arguendo that Complainant’s term is not generic but
instead merely descriptive of the goods to which it pertains and thus capable
of acquiring
distinctiveness, Complainant has not met its burden of proof that
the term QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY is distinctive of Complainant’s
goods or
services.
B.
Based on
the arguments above, Complainant has no rights or legitimate interests in
respect of the domain name in dispute.
At all
times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been in the business of
selling cabinet products. As
Complainant has no trademark rights, at common law or otherwise, to the term
QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY, Respondent is not precluded
from using this generic
term on the Internet to advertise itself as a cabinet dealer, or to link this
domain name to any other website
in which Respondent has an interest. Further, Respondent was a dealer for
Complainant at least as early as 1981.
At no time then or prior to the discovery of Respondent’s domain name
registration did Complainant seek to register the disputed domain
name despite
having nationwide distributorships as alleged in Complainant’s Declaration.
C. Complainant
has not demonstrated a pattern of conduct sufficient to support its assertion
that Respondent registered the domain name
in bad faith.
Complainant
contends that Respondent registered the domain name to disrupt Complainant’s
business for commercial gain by diverting
Internet traffic intended for
Complainant’s business to Respondent’s business. However, Complainant’s Declaration at Exhibit 7 of the Complaint
states that Complainant’s cabinet sales revenues were over $15,800,000
for
1998, over $17,000,000 for 1999, and have generally increased from year to year
thereafter. By comparison, Respondent’s
cabinet sales were approximately $2,400,000 in 2001. Accordingly, as Respondent’s cabinet sales account for but a
fraction of the sales enjoyed by Complainant, Complainant has failed
to demonstrate
that Respondent’s use or registration of the disputed domain name (i) confuses
consumers as to the source or origin
of the products offered for sale; (ii) has
disrupted the Complainant’s business; or (iii) resulted in a loss of revenue
directly
or indirectly attributable to Respondent’s registration or use of the
name.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a)
of the Rules for Uniform 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 Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant
asserts that it has used the QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY mark continuously since
1995 in relation to its cabinet business.
Complainant asserts and provides documentation that it holds various
state trademark registrations for its QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY
mark, including:
two registrations with Pennsylvania filed on May 17, 2001 and June 24, 2002,
and one New Jersey trademark registration
filed on June 25, 2002. WE SO FIND.
Complainant
also asserts that it has common law trademark rights in numerous states in the
U.S. stemming from acquired distinctiveness,
continuous and exclusive use of
the QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY mark since 1995.
See SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Masood, D-2000-0131 (WIPO
Apr. 13, 2000) (finding that the Rules do not require that 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 British
Broad. Corp. v. Renteria, D2000-0050 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2000) (noting that the
Policy “does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademarks and
service marks in the context of abusive registration of domain names” and
applying the Policy to “unregistered trademarks and service
marks”). WE SO FIND.
Complainant
asserts that Respondent’s <qualitycustomcabinetry.com> domain name
is identical to its QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY mark. The Panel finds that Respondent’s domain name reflects
Complainant’s mark in its entirety, failing to deviate in spelling, form or
connotation. Because generic top-level
domains (“gTLD”) are required of domain name registrants, they are considered
to be insubstantial when conducting
a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Pomellato S.p.A. v. Tonetti,
D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to
Complainant’s mark because the gTLD “.com” after the
name POMELLATO is not
relevant); see also Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, [2002] USCA9 115; 279 F.3d
1135, 1146 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) (“Internet users searching for a
company’s [w]ebsite ... assume, as a rule of thumb, that the domain name of
a
particular company will be the company name [or trademark] followed by
‘.com’”).
Rights
and Legitimate Interests Policy
¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant
contends that Respondent was an authorized dealer of Complainant’s products
from 1987 until December 31, 2000 and conducted
business under the Cabinet
Wholesalers, Inc. name at all times.
Complainant asserts that, as a dealer, Respondent sold cabinet products
bearing Complainant’s QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY mark. Complainant argues that, as a general rule, dealers are not
considered to have rights in the trademarks they are licensed to sell
or
deal. WE AGREE. See Heel Quik! Inc. v. Goldman,
FA 92527 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 1, 2000) (holding use of a domain name is
subject to the terms of a license agreement and any use
in violation of the
agreement would not be bona fide use within the meaning of the Policy); see
also Gorstew Ltd. v. Carribean Tours & Cruises, FA 94927 (Nat.
Arb. Forum July 28, 2000) (finding although some employees or agents of
Complainant were aware of Respondent’s unlicensed
use of
<sandalbeaches.com> and may have tacitly approved its use, that does not
indicate Respondent had a trademark license,
implied or otherwise).
Complainant
maintains that at no time during the period when Respondent was an authorized
dealer of Complainant was Respondent granted
rights to use the QUALITY CUSTOM
CABINETRY trademark as its own mark.
Complainant asserts that it was a contractual licensing agreement, and
when Complainant terminated Respondent as a dealer of its products
Respondent
ceased to have any right to use the QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY mark in any
fashion. Complainant’s Submission
suggests that Respondent’s intentions in registering the infringing domain name
were to divert Complainant’s
interested customers to its competing website,
which uses Complainant’s copyrighted photographs as content. The Panel finds that Respondent’s attempts
to divert Internet users to its infringing website is not a bona fide offering
of goods
or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial
or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Although following correspondence with
Complainant at or around June 6, 2001, the subject domain name has been
disabled and resolves
to an “Under Construction” web page. See Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R
& S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding thay
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 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); see also Big Dog Holdings,
Inc. v. Day, FA 93554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2000) (finding no legitimate
use when Respondent was diverting consumers to its own website by
using
Complaint’s trademarks).
Complainant
contends that Respondent has never been known by the <qualitycustomcabinetry.com>
domain name or any variation of the QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY trademark pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant also
argues that at no time has Respondent used the QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY
trademark, or a trademark incorporating any
combination of the words, in
association with the subject domain name.
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 Nokia
Corp. v. Private, D-2000-1271 (WIPO Nov. 3, 2000) (finding that Respondent
is not commonly known by the mark contained in the domain name where
Complainant
has not permitted Respondent to use the NOKIA mark and no other
facts or elements can justify prior rights or a legitimate connection
to the
names “Nokia” and/or “wwwNokia”); see also Charles Jourdan Holdings
AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or
legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant;
(2)
Complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s
registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the
domain name in
question). WE SO FIND.
Registration
and Use in Bad Faith Policy
¶ 4(a)(iii).
Paragraph 4(b)
of the Policy represents a non-exhaustive list of bad faith evidence. Therefore, it is proper for the Panel to
consider the totality of circumstances when determining if Respondent
registered the domain
name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Complainant asserts that Respondent had
actual knowledge of Complainant’s QUALITY CUSTOM CABINETRY trademark when it
sought registration
of the infringing domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration of an infringing
domain name, despite knowledge of Complainant’s preexisting rights,
constitutes
bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See
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 Cellular One Group v. Brien, D2000-0028 (WIPO Mar. 10, 2000)
(finding that the criteria specified in 4(b) of the Policy is not an exhaustive
list of bad faith
evidence); 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).
Complainant
contends that Respondent attempted to sell its rights in the subject domain
name for an exorbitant price, which included
an agreement by Complainant not to
terminate Respondent as an authorized dealer for ten years. Complainant contends that Respondent’s
actions evidence bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See 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”); 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). WE AGREE.
Complainant
asserts Respondent registered and uses the <qualitycustomcabinetry.com>
domain name in bad faith because Respondent’s intention in registering the
domain name was to disrupt Complainant’s business. Complainant believes that Respondent’s intentional infringement
of Complainant’s mark represents bad faith registration and use under
Policy ¶
4(b)(iii). See Mission Kwa
Sizabantu v. Rost, D2000-0279 (WIPO June 7, 2000) (defining “competitor” as
“...one who acts in opposition to another and the context does not imply
or
demand any restricted meaning such as commercial or business competitor”); see
also Surface Prot. Indus., Inc. v. Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb.
5, 2001) (finding that, given the competitive relationship between Complainant
and Respondent, Respondent likely
registered the contested domain name with the
intent to disrupt Complainant’s business and create user confusion). WE SO FIND.
Complainant
also argues that Respondent utilizes Complainant’s copyrighted materials on its
website in an effort to commercially capitalize
on the infringing domain
name. Complainant asserts that such use
represents bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
See Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Comm. Corp., FA 93668
(Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent registered
and used an infringing domain name to attract
users to a website sponsored by
Respondent); 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 TM Acquisition Corp. v. Carroll, FA
97035 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 14, 2001) (finding bad faith where Respondent used
the domain name, for commercial gain, to intentionally
attract users to a
direct competitor of Complainant). WE
SO FIND.
DECISION
For the various
reasons discussed above, we find in favor of Complainant and against Respondent
and we direct that the domain name
<qualitycustomcabinetry.com> be
transferred from Respondent to Complainant, Quality Custom Cabinetry,
Inc.
JUDGE RICHARD B. WICKERSHAM, (Ret.
Judge), Panelist
Dated: September 7, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1375.html