Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Albertson's, Inc. v. For Sale or Lease
a/k/a Eddie Jones
Claim Number: FA0208000123865
PARTIES
Complainant
is Albertson's, Inc., Boise, ID
(“Complainant”) represented by David J.
Steele, of Christie, Parker &
Hale LLP. Respondent is Eddie Jones a/k/a For Sale or Lease,
Burbank, CA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <oscodrugstore.com>,
<oscosdrug.com>, and <save-onpharmacy.com>,
registered with eNom, 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.
Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on August 23, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on August 26, 2002.
On
August 29, 2002, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
names <oscodrugstore.com>,
<oscosdrug.com>, and <save-onpharmacy.com> are
registered with eNom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the
names. eNom, Inc. has verified that
Respondent is bound by the eNom, 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 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@oscodrugstore.com, postmaster@oscosdrug.com, and
postmaster@save-onpharmacy.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 Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
The
<oscodrugstore.com> and <oscosdrug.com> domain names are confusingly similar to
Complainant's OSCO and OSCO DRUG marks.
The
<save-onpharmacy.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s SAV-ON DRUGS mark.
Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Respondent
registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
failed to submit a Response.
FINDINGS
Complainant has used the OSCO and OSCO
DRUG marks in commerce since 1937, when it opened its first drug store. Complainant operates over 533 drugs stores
under the OSCO mark. Complainant also
uses websites extensively in relation to its drug retail business. Complainant registered its OSCO mark with
the United States Patent and Trademark Office as Registration Number
1,003,861. Complainant also operates a
website at <oscodrug.com> and <oscodrugs.com>.
Complainant has used the SAV-ON DRUGS
mark since 1945. Complainant operates
over 400 drug stores under the SAV-ON DRUGS mark throughout the western United
States. Complainant spends millions of
dollars in advertising to promote its SAV-ON DRUGS mark. It also uses the domain names
<sav-ondrugs.com> and <savon.com> to further promote its store and
service customers. Several million
customers have accessed the <sav-ondrugs.com> domain name in search of
information about Complainant.
Complainant currently has a trademark application pending in the United
States Patent and Trademark Office for SAV-ON DRUGS (App.
No. 74,652,534).
Respondent registered all of the disputed
domain names on January 19, 2002.
Respondent is using the disputed domain names in order to divert
Internet users to a search engine website.
Respondent has listed the domain names for sale by stating in its WHOIS
information that all of the domain names are “For Sale or
Lease.”
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
Complainant has established that it has
rights in the OSCO mark through registration with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office
and continuous use.
Complainant has established its rights in the OSCO DRUGS and SAV-ON
DRUGS marks through continuous and extensive use. The ICANN dispute
resolution
policy is “broad in scope” in that “the reference to a trademark or service
mark ‘in which the Complainant has rights’
means that ownership of a registered
mark is not required–unregistered or common law trademark or service mark
rights will suffice”
to support a domain name Complaint under the Policy. McCarthy
on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 25:74.2, Vol. 4 (2000).
Respondent’s <oscodrugstore.com> domain
name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s OCSO and OSCO DRUGS marks because
it incorporates the majority of both marks and
merely adds that word “store” to
the end. The addition of a descriptive
term such as “store” does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a
claim of confusing similarity. See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownwell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing
similarity where Respondent’s domain name combines Complainant’s mark with
a
generic term that has an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business); see
also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela,
FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that the
<hoylecasino.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
HOYLE mark, and that the addition of “casino,” a generic word describing the
type of business in which Complainant is engaged, does
not take the disputed
domain name out of the realm of confusing similarity).
The
<oscosdrug.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s OSCO DRUG mark because it uses Complainant’s entire mark and
merely deletes
the “s” from the end and adds an “s” to the end of OSCO. The omission of the letter “s” at the end of
a mark in a domain name does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a
Policy
¶ 4(a)(i) confusingly similar analysis, nor does the addition of an “s”
to a mark create any distinctive characteristic. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v.
HarperStephens,
D2000-0716 (WIPO Sept. 5, 2000) (finding that deleting the letter “s” from
Complainant’s UNIVERSAL STUDIOS STORE mark did not change
the overall
impression of the mark and thus made the disputed domain name confusingly
similar to it); see also Nat’l
Geographic Soc. v. Stoneybrook Inv., FA 96263 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11,
2001) (finding that the domain name <nationalgeographics.com> was
confusingly similar to
Complainant’s “National Geographic” mark).
The <save-onpharmacy.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s common law SAV-ON DRUGS
mark because the “save-on” portion is phonetically
similar, and incorporates a
common typing error (the added “e”).
The misspelling of a mark in a domain name does not create a distinct
mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Zuccarini, FA 94454 (Nat. Arb. Forum May
30, 2000) (finding the domain name <hewlitpackard.com> to be identical or
confusingly similar
to Complainant’s HEWLETT-PACKARD mark); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Cupcake City, FA
93562 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 7, 2000) (finding that a domain name which is
phonetically identical to Complainant’s mark satisfies
¶ 4(a)(i) of the
Policy). Furthermore, the addition of a descriptive term such as “pharmacy” to
replace “drugs” does not eradicate
any potential confusion on the part of the
consumer, because drugstores are often called pharmacies and, therefore,
customers of
Complainant will probably believe that words “drugs” and
“pharmacy” are interchangeable. See 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 in each case, namely the trademark
SONY” and thus Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is
satisfied).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has
been satisfied.
Respondent has failed to come forward
with a Response. Therefore, the Panel
is permitted to make reasonable inferences in favor of Complainant and accept
Complainant’s allegations as true. See 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); see also Talk
City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence
of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the
Complaint”).
Furthermore, based on Respondent’s
failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and
legitimate interests in
the disputed domain names. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that once Complainant asserts that
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in
respect of the domain, the
burden shifts to Respondent to provide credible evidence that substantiates its
claim of rights and legitimate
interests in the domain name); see also Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326
(WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interest in the domain name because Respondent
never submitted a Response nor
provided the Panel with evidence to suggest otherwise).
Respondent is using all three of the
disputed domain names in order to divert Internet users to a search engine
website. The use of Complainant’s mark
in order to divert Internet users interested in Complainant to Respondent’s
website is not considered
to be in connection with a bona fide offering of
goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial
or
fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
See 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 Complainant’s
trademarks); see also Am. Online,
Inc. v. Tencent Comm. Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000)
(finding that use of Complainant’s mark “as a portal to suck surfers into a
site sponsored
by Respondent hardly seems legitimate”).
There is no evidence on record, and
Respondent has not come forward with any evidence to show that it is commonly
known as <oscodrugstore.com>,
<oscosdrug.com>, or <save-onpharmacy.com>. Therefore,
Respondent has failed to establish that it has rights or legitimate interests
in the disputed domain names pursuant 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).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
It can be inferred that Respondent
registered the disputed domain names with the intent to sell its rights in the
domain names because
it put “For Sale or Lease” in its WHOIS information. Registration of a domain name for the
primary purpose of selling, renting or transferring the registration is
evidence of bad faith
registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Parfums Christain Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9,
2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent’s WHOIS registration information
contained the words, “This
is domain name is for sale”); see also Euromarket Designs, Inc. v. Domain For Sale
VMI, D2000-1195 (WIPO Oct. 26, 2000) (finding “the manner in which the
Respondent chose to identify itself and its administrative and
billing contacts
both conceals its identity and unmistakably conveys its intention, from the
date of the registration, to sell rather
than make any use of the disputed
domain name”).
Furthermore, it can be inferred that
Respondent it making a profit from the Internet users it is directing to its
search engine website. The use of
domain names, confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, in order to divert
Internet users interested in Complainant to
Respondent’s website for
Respondent’s profit is evidence of bad faith use 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 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).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
has been satisfied.
DECISION
Having established all three elements
required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief
shall be hereby
GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the
domain names <oscodrugstore.com>,
<oscosdrug.com>, and <save-onpharmacy.com> be
TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: October 21, 2002.
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1466.html