Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Club Gene & Georgetti v. Gulf South
Limited
Claim Number: FA0208000123925
PARTIES
Complainant
is Club Gene & Georgetti,
Chicago, IL (“Complainant”) represented by Timothy
T. Patula, of Patula &
Associates, P.C. Respondent is Gulf South Limited, Roswell, GA
(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <geneandgeorgetti.com>,
registered with Stargate Communications,
Inc.
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.
G.
Gervaise Davis III, Esq., as single Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on August 29, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on September 3, 2002.
On
September 3, 2002, Stargate Communications, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the
Forum that the domain name <geneandgeorgetti.com>
is registered with Stargate Communications, Inc. and that the Respondent is the
current registrant of the name. Stargate
Communications, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Stargate
Communications, Inc. 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
September 4, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”),
setting a deadline
of September 24, 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@geneandgeorgetti.com by
e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on September 24,
2002.
On October 7, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to
have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed G. Gervaise
Davis III, Esq., as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
(1) Disputed Domain Name is Identical to
Complainant’s Federal Trademarks.
The disputed domain name registered by
Respondent, <geneandgeorgetti.com> is identical to the business
name used by Complainant, Gene & Georgetti, for more than sixty years. The disputed domain name is identical to
Complainant’s federally registered trademarks, GENE & GEORGETTI and CLUB
GENE AND GEORGETTI,
Reg. Nos. 1,950,503 and 1,948,304, respectively. Further, the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s federally registered trademark
“GEORGETTI,” Reg. No. 1,992,410.
Respondent’s unauthorized use of Complainant’s federally registered
trademarks in its domain name erroneously leads Complainant’s
customers to
believe that the domain name is somehow associated with Complainant.
(2)
Respondent
Has No Rights or Legitimate Interest in Disputed Domain Name.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests with respect to the disputed domain name. Complainant has used the business name Gene & Georgetti since
1941, and owns federal trademark registrations for GENE & GEORGETTI,
GEORGETTI, and CLUB GENE AND GEORGETTI, Reg. Nos. 1,950,503, 1,992,410, and
1,948,304, respectively. Respondent has
never been licensed or authorized in any other way to use any one of
Complainant’s federally registered marks.
Respondent is not commonly known by the
domain name and cannot claim that it is making a noncommercial or fair use of
the domain name. Complainant has
located no evidence that Respondent offers or intends to offer any bona fide
goods or services under the disputed
domain name.
Respondent registered the domain name on
January 26, 1999. In the three years
since Respondent registered the disputed domain name, Respondent has made no
demonstrative attempt or preparation
to use it. Furthermore, the disputed domain name is not connected to any web
or mail servers and is not used with any active site.
Not only does Respondent not currently
have rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, it can never
obtain such
rights or interest.
Complainant has been using the mark GENE & GEORGETTI for more than
sixty years. Through Complainant’s
continuous and exclusive use of this and related marks, the mark has obtained
secondary meaning, not only in
the United States, but also throughout the
world. Therefore, Complainant would
oppose any attempt by Respondent to use the disputed domain name and would
claim service mark infringement
and dilution.
(3) Disputed Domain Name Was Registered and
Is Being Used in Bad Faith.
Respondent’s bad faith is evidenced by
the fact that it has a pattern of registering domain names that are identical
or confusingly
similar to famous marks.
In fact, Complainant has located three domain name dispute complaints,
filed by three separate complainants, involving Respondent:
(1) Toyota Motor
Sales, U.S.A. Inc., et al v. Gulf South Ltd., D2001-0698 (WIPO July 25,
2001); (2) Emory Healthcare, Inc. v.
Gulf South Ltd., FA 94892 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 5, 2000); (3) Ford’s Fancy Fruits, Inc. v. Gulf
South Ltd., FA 95898 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 14, 2000). These previous complaints, to which
Respondent failed to reply and which resulted in the domain names being
transferred to complainants,
demonstrate a pattern of bad faith conduct by
Respondent. Copies of the decisions in
the above-cited complaints were attached to the Complaint herein.
The significant goodwill and value of
Complainant’s marks are undoubtedly what prompted Respondent’s registration of
the disputed
domain name. Use of
Complainant’s business name and trademarks by any other person would suggest
purposeful registration to infringe upon Complainant’s
marks. Respondent registered the domain name in
order to prevent Complainant from registering it. Respondent calculatedly registered a name that Complainant would
need for its business. As stated
earlier, Respondent has an established pattern of conducting such bad faith
activities. Furthermore, Respondent’s
use of the disputed domain name creates a likelihood of confusion with
Complainant’s mark as to the source,
sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement
of Respondent’s web site.
Respondent’s registration and use of the
disputed domain name in bad faith is further evidenced by Respondent’s
offering, when contacted
by Complainant, to sell the disputed domain name <geneandgeorgetti.com>
to Complainant for $5,000, a sum well in excess of the registration fee paid by
Respondent for this domain name.
Finally, Respondent registered the
disputed domain name more than three years ago and is not yet operating any web
site in connection
with it. ICANN
Panels have in the past found bad faith where a party has passively
“warehoused” a domain name while fully aware the name contained
another party’s
trademark. See Toyota Motor Sales USA v. Hamid, D2001-0032 (WIPO March
28, 2001); see also ISL Mktg. AG and the Fed’n Internationale de Football
Ass’n v. J.Y. Chung, Worldcup 2002.com, D2000-0034 (WIPO Apr. 3, 2000).
B. Respondent
Respondent
operates a website <undergroundatlanta.com>. Undergroundatlanta.com is an
information publication for the greater
Atlanta metropolitan area including
such diverse activities as dining, entertainment, special events, local
attractions, and travel
information.
Respondent
intends to offer a free Internet directory for dining, travel, entertainment
and special events which provides consumer
information and allows consumers the
opportunity to critique establishments as protected by the First Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution. Respondent has
acquired many travel, entertainment and dining related domain names and in the
future plans to link all domains to
the directory. The purpose is not for commercial gain. The domain names will be used to link consumers and the general
public to Respondent’s web site. The site’s contents will consist
of
constitutionally protected non-commercial materials used in the exercise of
Respondent’s fundamental rights under the First Amendment
of the U.S.
Constitution. In the case of Bally
Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber, 29 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (USDC C.D. Cal.
1998) (the Court found that criticism of the Bally fitness company did not
infringe the company’s trademark because
it amounted to non-commercial
expression protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, did not
tarnish the underlying trademark and was unrelated to the goods and services
involved) it was concluded that the Claimants
web site consisted of
non-commercial First Amendment protected materials.
Respondent
registered the domain name <geneandgeorgetti.com> on
January 26,1999. Respondent has never
attempted to create any likelihood of confusion with usage of the domain
name. Respondent has not disrupted the
business of Complainant nor wrongfully attracted Internet users by creating
confusion that Respondent’s
website is actually the official website of
Complainant.
Respondent
plans to make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name,
without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly
divert consumers or to
tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Respondent
contends that the domain name <geneandgeorgetti.com> was
registered in good faith. Respondent claims no intent to deceive Internet
users, to cause confusion with Complainant’s website
or mark, or to prevent
Complainant from using its mark in a domain name.
Respondent
contends that there is no evidence (1) that Respondent registered the domain
name primarily for the purpose of transferring
the domain name to Complainant
(2) that Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of
disrupting the business
of a competitor; or (3) that Respondent has
intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the
Respondent’s
web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s
trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement
of
Respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s
web site or location.
C. Additional Submissions
Complainant
submitted a Supplemental Response which argues, among other things:
(1) Respondent’s pleading does not deny or
even suggest that the domain name at issue is substantially identical to the
registered marks
of Complainant, which is tantamount to an admission of this
element of Complainant’s case.
(2) Respondent’s alleged “undergroundatlanta”
website is not an active website in that it goes nowhere at this time, merely
stating what
its eventual purpose is, without any links, and that in any event,
a website relating to businesses in Atlanta, Georgia, has no relationship
to
Complainant’s business which is in Chicago, Illinois.
(3) Respondent’s argument that it is
protected under the First Amendment is irrelevant and groundless because there
is no speech on the
site and what is there has nothing to do with the use of
the trademark of Complainant or with Complainant’s business.
(4) The rest of Respondent’s denials of bad
faith are unsubstantiated and erroneous in light of Respondent’s past record of
registering
the trademarks of other businesses without any reason or legitimate
interest therein, and the fact that Respondent does not even
attempt to defend
its effort to sell the domain name to Complainant for a sum substantially in
excess of its cost to Respondent.
There
was no further Response from Respondent, which is appropriate since there is no
contemplated Response expected.
FINDINGS
(1)
The domain
name in question is identical and confusingly similar to the registered
trademark “Gene & Georgetti” and is substantially
identical to the other
two marks claimed by Complainant;
(2)
The
Respondent has presented no legally significant basis for any legitimate use of
the name by it or nor established any rights in
the trademarks or the name by
Respondent; and,
(3)
The
Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith, for the
reasons expressed herein.
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
As noted by Complainant in its
Supplemental Response, even Respondent does not claim that the domain name is
not identical and confusingly
similar to Complainant’s registered marks. The domain name and the mark “Gene &
Georgetti” are identical except for the ampersand (in lieu of the word “and”)
and the “.com”
extension, both of which are ignored for purposes of all domain
name cases. Under the circumstances it is also confusingly similar
since it
does not lead anywhere except a black home page with scrolls and the name with
no further information, and it thus prevents
customers from arriving at the
expected business of the owner of the mark.
Thus, Complainant satisfies Policy ¶
4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel agrees with Complainant that
Respondent’s argument that it owns and operates a website under the domain name
<undergroundatlanta.com>
does not provide any conceivable basis for its
claim that it has a legitimate claim or right to use of the registered mark as
a domain
name. Simply stated,
Respondent provides no rational basis for its registration or its claim to a
right to use the trademarked name. This
mark is not its name, it has no claim to use of the name, and it does not need
to have a domain name with this mark in it in
order to refer to the business of
Complainant.
Assuming, arguendo, that the website in
question were operative and even that there were a Gene & Georgetti Club or
restaurant
in Atlanta, the mere desire of the website operator to list and comment
on facilities and businesses in that City does not give such
website operator
the right to appropriate registered marks as domain names. This is a specious argument, because registration of a mark as a domain
name is not necessary in this case to refer to the business. The website could, within the First
Amendment rights of the operator, refer to the business on the webpage and
provide phone numbers,
addresses and favorable or adverse commentary about the
business, all without objection from the trademark owner. Federal courts have consistently held that
this right to use a reference to a trademarked business is available, since
there is often
no other practical means of referring to a business except to
use its trademarked name. See, e.g.,
New Kids on the Block v. News
Am. Publ’g Inc. [1992] USCA9 2148; 971 F 2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992). However, as other UDRP Panels have held, this “fair use” right
does not extend to use of a trademark as a domain name where there
is no reason
for its use other than to prevent the use of it by the owner or where it has
been registered to sell the domain name
registration. See, Estee Lauder Inc. v. estelauder.com, estelauder.net and
Jeff Hanna, D2000-0869 (WIPO 2000 UDRP LEXIS 656) (one of many such cases).
Based on this logic, Complainant has also
met the second requirement to prevail here.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Finally, Complainant’s allegations of bad
faith registration and use appear to be substantiated both because of the
facts, and the
fact that Respondent offers no reason for its registration or
use of the domain name beyond that rejected above. The fact that Respondent fails to comment on, or explain, its
offer to sell the domain name to the trademark owner for $5,000 would
suggest
that Respondent, itself, recognizes that this step is fatal to its case under
existing UDRP case law. Respondent’s
offer to sell, under these circumstances, is clear evidence that Respondent
initially registered the domain name with
an intent to sell its rights to the
trademark owner and to prevent its use by the logical person or business who
would have a right
to use it. While we
do not agree with Complainant that merely registering generic or common word
domain names to “warehouse” them for later sale
is in and of itself improper
under the UDRP, it is clear beyond the need for citation of cases that
registering unique trademarks
as domain names and then offering them for sale
to the trademark owner is, in fact, cause under the UDRP for transfer of the
name
to the trademark owner. Several of
the cases cited by Complainant involved such facts.
Furthermore, where as here Respondent has
already been the subject of previous domain name cases, which found improper
registration
and use of the domain names in question, there is further justification
for a finding of bad faith registration and use of the instant
domain
name. This is evidence of trafficking
in domain names for the purpose of sale and is part of the pattern of the
classical cybersquatter. As this Panel
has pointed out in previous decisions, the principal purpose of the UDRP is to
provide a simple and cost effective means
of preventing “abusive” registrations
of trademarks as domain names. This
case is, in the judgment of the Panel, exactly that.
DECISION
Complainant, having established its case
on all three points, is entitled to have the domain name <geneandgeorgetti.com> transferred to it, and it is ordered
that Stargate Communications, Inc. as the Registrar effect the TRANSFER
as provided in the UDRP and under its own supplemental rules.
G. Gervaise Davis III, Esq., Panelist
Dated: October 18, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1457.html