Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
DECISION
Foot Locker
Retail, Inc. v. Promo.Net Communications, Inc.
Claim Number:
FA0208000118312
PARTIES
Complainant is
Foot Locker Retail, Inc., New York, NY, USA (“Complainant”) represented by Melissa Klipp, of Drinker Biddle & Shanley, LLP. Respondent is Promo.Net
Communications, Inc., Montreal, PQ, CANADA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND
DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <champssportsbook.com>, registered with VeriSign, Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently
and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict
in
serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra Franklin as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National
Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on August 16, 2002; the Forum
received
a hard copy of the Complaint on August 16, 2002.
On August 19, 2002, VeriSign, Inc. confirmed by e-mail
to the Forum that the domain name <champssportsbook.com>
is registered with VeriSign, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant
of the name. VeriSign, Inc. has
verified that Respondent is bound by the VeriSign, 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 August 22, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and
Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”),
setting
a deadline of September 11, 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@champssportsbook.com by e-mail.
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 October 7, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request
to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed
Sandra
Franklin 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 for Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “to employ reasonably available
means
calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent.” Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents
submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN 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.
PARTIES’
CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <champssportsbook.com> domain
name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered CHAMPS SPORTS mark.
2. Respondent does not have rights to or
legitimate interests in the <champssportsbook.com>
domain name.
3. Respondent
registered and used the <champssportsbook.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this
proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant has
established itself as a leading retailer in sporting goods, both nationally and
internationally. On November 1, 2001,
Complainant changed its legal name from
Venator Group Retail, Inc. to Foot Locker Retail, Inc. Venator was the former registered owner of
the CHAMPS SPORTS family of trademarks comprised of CHAMPS SPORTS, CHAMPS, and
CHAMPSSPORTS.COM
marks (CHAMPS SPORTS marks). Complainant, Foot Locker Retail
Inc., currently owns all registrations of the CHAMPS SPORTS marks with
the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USTPO). With approximately 600 stores and an international online
ordering system, Complainant serves in excess of ten million customers per
year. Complainant has utilized the CHAMPS SPORTS marks in connection with
advertising and sales of, inter alia, athletic
apparel, footwear and equipment.
Respondent
registered the disputed domain name on February 7, 2002. Complainant’s inquiry
into the status of the website shows it
to be inactive. Respondent tried to
sell the rights to the domain name to Complainant at an unspecified cost
greater than the initial
registration fee.
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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or
service mark in which Complainant has
rights; and
(2) 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 <champssportsbook.com> domain
name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered CHAMPS SPORTS marks
given that it incorporates Complainant’s entire
mark and merely adds the common
term “book.” The addition of the
generic term “book” does not create a unique and distinct mark from the CHAMPS
SPORTS registered mark. A domain name
does not become distinct from another’s trademark simply by adding a common
generic term. Arthur Guinness Son &
Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH,
D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain
name in dispute contains the identical mark of Complainant
combined with a
generic word or term); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil,
D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that “[n]either the addition of an
ordinary descriptive word…nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract
from the overall impression
of the dominant part of the name”).
Furthermore, the
domain name is confusingly similar since Complainant’s entire mark is used
within the disputed domain name.
Customers may believe that there is an association between both parties
when none exists. See Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Indus. Sales Corp., FA 95856 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that confusion would result when Internet users,
intending to access Complainant’s
website, think that an affiliation of some
sort exists between Complainant and Respondent, when in fact, no such
relationship would
exist).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has thus been satisfied.
Rights or
Legitimate Interests
Respondent has
not submitted a reply to Complainant’s allegations, thereby permitting the
Panel to conclude that all reasonable inferences
made by Complainant are true
and accurate unless there is evidence that is clearly contradictory. 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); Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi
Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to
respond allows a presumption that Complainant’s allegations are true unless
clearly contradicted by the evidence). There is no evidence that contradicts
the allegations of Complainant.
Complainant has presented evidence that substantiates its claim that Respondent
has no legitimate rights or interests in the contested
domain name.
Respondent is
currently not using the disputed domain name for any purpose. Registration, coupled with passive holding
of a domain name without tangible evidence of intent to use the domain name,
supports the
inference that Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in
the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii). See
Bloomberg L.P. v. Sandhu, FA 96261 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 12, 2001) (finding
that no rights or legitimate interest can be found when Respondent fails to use
disputed domain name in any way); see also Chanel, Inc. v. Heyward,
D2000-1802 (WIPO Feb. 23, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where “Respondent registered the domain name and did
nothing with it”). Simply registering the domain name is not
satisfactory to establish a right to the domain name. See Vestel Elektronik
Sanayi ve Ticaret AS v. Kahveci, D2000-1244 (WIPO Nov. 11, 2000) (finding
that “merely registering the domain name is not sufficient to establish rights
or legitimate
interests for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy”).
There is no
evidence before the Panel to establish a viable connection between the domain
name <champssportsbook.com>
and Respondent’s Promo.net Communications, Inc. business. On the contrary, Complainant has produced
significant evidence to establish itself as primary holder of all legitimate
rights and
interests in the name CHAMPS SPORTS. Since Respondent is not known
by, or associated with the CHAMPS SPORTS or <champssportsbook.com> name, it is reasonable to conclude
that Respondent has no rights to the domain name according to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). 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 Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v.
Webdeal.com, Inc., FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in domain names because
it is
not commonly known by Complainant’s marks and Respondent has not used the
domain names in connection with a bona fide offering
of goods and services or
for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has thus been satisfied.
Registration and
Use in Bad Faith
Respondent was
placed on constructive notice of Complainant’s rights since the CHAMPS SPORTS
marks were registered on the Principal
Register of the USPTO. Registering a domain name confusingly
similar to Complainant’s mark demonstrates bad faith. See 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);
see also 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).
Complainant has
clearly established a worldwide reputation through an affiliation with the
CHAMPS SPORTS mark. Respondent’s action
infringe upon Complainant’s rights.
This attempt to confuse consumers amounts to use in bad faith. 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").
There is
additional evidence of bad faith use that is of note. Respondent, when contacted about the disputed domain name,
attempted unsuccessfully to sell the rights and interests to Complainant
for a
price in excess of what Respondent paid.
This behavior on the part of Respondent is regarded as evidence of bad
faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). 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 Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. Servability Ltd, D2001-0243 (WIPO Apr. 5, 2001) (finding bad faith where
Respondent, a domain name dealer, rejected Complainant’s nominal offer of
the
domain in lieu of greater consideration).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has thus been satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
hereby concludes that the requested relief shall
be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is ordered that the domain name <champssportsbook.com>
be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to
Complainant.
Sandra Franklin, Panelist
Dated: October 18, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1459.html