Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Austin, Nichols & Co. v. Dave Petersen
Claim Number: FA0208000117913
PARTIES
Complainant is
Austin, Nichols & Co., White Plains, NY (“Complainant”) represented by
Louis S. Ederer, of Gursky & Ederer, LLP. Respondent is Dave Petersen,
Ludington, MI (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED
DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue
is <wildturkey.info>, registered with domainbargain.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.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf
(Ret.) as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a
Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on August
9, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the Complaint on August 12, 2002.
On August 22, 2002, domainbargain.com
confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <wildturkey.info>
is registered with domainbargain.com and that the Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Domainbargain.com
has verified that Respondent is bound by the domainbargain.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 August 29, 2002, a
Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the
“Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of September 18, 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@wildturkey.info by e-mail.
A timely Response was
received and determined to be complete on September 12, 2002.
Complainant filed a
timely Additional Submission on September 13, 2002.
Respondent filed a
timely Additional Submission on September 14, 2002.
On October 1, 2002,
pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a
single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Honorable
Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as
Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests
that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant contends
that the domain name at issue is identical to its registered trademark; that
Respondent lacks rights or interest
in the domain name; and that Respondent
registered and used the domain names at issue in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent contends that
he does have a right to use the domain name at issue; and did not register the
domain name at issue in bad
faith.
C. Additional
Submissions
Complainant’s Additional
Submission contains a rebuttal to Respondent’s Response, with strong emphasis
on what Complainant interprets
as Respondent’s admissions as to bad faith.
Respondent’s Additional
Submission contains a rebuttal to Complainant’s arguments regarding
Respondent’s bad faith registration of
the domain name at issue.
FINDINGS
Complainant is a
well-known distiller, holding four trademarks with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office. Complainant also uses
this trademark in connection with other products and services, including Internet
services. The mark has been in use
consistently since 1942.
Respondent has
registered over 150 domain names, and states he would like to develop 100 sites
that would generate an income stream
to support his family. He also offers domain names for sale.
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 does not
dispute the fact that the domain name at issue is identical and/or confusingly
similar to Complainant’s famous
mark.
Rights or Legitimate
Interests
Respondent has not
presented any evidence to dispute Complainant’s contention that the domain name
at issue is not being used in connection
with a bona fide offering of goods or
services. See Ziegenfelder Co. v.
VMH Enters., Inc., D2000-0039 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding that failure to provide a product
or service or develop the site demonstrates that Respondent has not established
any rights
or legitimate interests in the said domain name).
Registration and Use in
Bad Faith
The evidence presented
would indicated that Respondent registered the domain names at issue to
intentionally attract, for commercial
gain, Internet users to its website, or
other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s
well-established
mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation and
endorsement of Respondent’s website. See
Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that Respondent had engaged in bad faith use and
registration by linking the
domain name to a website that offers services
similar to Complainant’s services, intentionally attempting to attract, for
commercial
gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of
confusion with Complainant’s marks); see also Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net,
FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain
name in question is obviously connected with Complainant’s
well known marks,
thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain).
Additionally, Complainant’s
reputation and its substantial consumer recognition and goodwill would lead one
to believe that Respondent
had to have been aware of Complainant’s mark prior
to registering the domain name at issue. See Reuters Ltd. v. Teletrust IPR
Ltd., D2000-0471 (WIPO Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that Respondent demonstrated
bad faith where Respondent was aware of Complainant’s famous
mark when
registering the domain name as well as aware of the deception and confusion
that would inevitably follow if he used the
domain names).
DECISION
As all three elements
required by the ICANN Policy paragraph 4(a) have been satisfied, it is the
decision of the Panel that the requested
relief be GRANTED.
Accordingly, for all of
the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain name <wildturkey.info>
be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf
(Ret.), Panelist
Dated: October 17, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1454.html