Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
NetCreations, Inc. v. Rob Martinson d/b/a
Postmasterdirectmail.com
Claim Number: FA0208000118398
PARTIES
Complainant
is NetCreations, Inc., New York, NY
(“Complainant”) represented by Eric
Prager, of Darby & Darby, PC. Respondent is Rob Martinson d/b/a Postmasterdirectmail.com, Atlanta, GA
(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <postmasterdirectmail.com>,
registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc.
PANEL
The
undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that
to the best of her knowledge she has no known
conflict in serving as Panelist
in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits 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 20, 2002.
On
August 20, 2002, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the domain name <postmasterdirectmail.com>
is registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Go Daddy
Software, Inc. verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software, 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
25, 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@postmasterdirectmail.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 16, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon.
Carolyn Marks Johnson 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 makes the following
allegations in this proceeding:
The
<postmasterdirectmail.com> domain
name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s POSTMASTERDIRECT mark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the <postmasterdirectmail.com>
domain name. Respondent registered
and used the <postmasterdirectmail.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B.
Respondent failed to submit a Response.
FINDINGS
Complainant holds a registered trademark
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the
POSTMASTERDIRECT mark
(Reg. No. 2,469,058).
In addition, Complainant has the POSTMASTER and POSTMASTERDIRECT.COM
marks registered with the USPTO (Reg. Nos. 1,993,686 and 2,469,058).
Complainant initiated its business of
offering “100% Opt-in® email direct marketing services” in 1996, the same year
in which Complainant
first started using the POSTMASTERDIRECT mark in
commerce. One year later, in 1997,
Complainant registered the <postmasterdirect.com> domain name and
developed a website to expand its
advertising services. Complainant now extensively operates as a
full service direct email marketing company.
Complainant developed the largest
database of “opt-in” email addresses, which has grown to approximately 40
million addresses. Complainant also
developed a process called “double opt-in” whereby Complainant ensures that participants
on its POSTMASTERDIRECT
lists receive offers from participating marketers. Complainant’s commitment to privacy in the
marketing business has gained Complainant a high level of respect and
acknowledgment throughout
the e-commerce industry.
Respondent registered the <postmasterdirectmail.com> domain
name May 14, 2002. Respondent has not
developed a website with content associated with the domain name. Respondent, however, uses the domain name as
a cover when sending unsolicited mass emails.
Complainant’s investigation uncovered that Respondent operates in the
same
e-commerce marketing business that
Complainant is engaged in and that Respondent’s email marketing campaigns are
sent through unsolicited
mass emails, otherwise known as “spam” emails. Complainant prides itself on being an
“opt-in” advertising database and Complainant works hard to ensure that it
sends only solicited
emails.
Respondent’s unsolicited email
advertisements end with the following statement: “You are receiving this email from PostmasterDirectmail in
response to your request for more information while registering for email. If you would prefer not to receive marketing
messages from us, please send an email to unsubscribe@postmasterdirectmail.com.” This statement is false because the email
address returns emails as “undeliverable.”
Therefore, no way exists for the recipients to unsubscribe from
Respondent’s “spam” emails.
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 Complainant's
undisputed
representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and
will draw such inferences as it considers
appropriate pursuant to paragraph
14(b) of the Rules.
Paragraph
4(a) of the Policy requires that 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.
Complainant established in this
proceeding that it has rights in the POSTMASTERDIRECT mark through registration
with the USPTO and
by continuous use in commerce since 1996.
The domain name registered by Respondent,
<postmasterdirectmail.com>,
wholly incorporates Complainant’s POSTMASTERDIRECT mark with the addition of
the word “mail.” Since Complainant
extensively uses its mark in association with its “opt-in” email marketing
services, the addition of the business
related word “mail” to the mark only has
the potential to cause confusion.
Therefore, Respondent’s <postmasterdirectmail.com>
domain name is not distinguishable from Complainant’s POSTMASTERDIRECT mark
and the domain name is confusingly similar to the mark
under Policy ¶
4(a)(i). See 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 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).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
has been satisfied.
Rights to or Legitimate Interests
Complainant alleged that Respondent has
no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and no authority from
Complainant to
use its mark.
Allegations and proof with the Complaint effectively shift the burden of
proof to Respondent to articulate valid rights or legitimate
interests in the
domain name. Respondent failed to do
so. Respondent did not answer the Complaint and the Panel is permitted to find
that Respondent has no such
rights or legitimate interests in the domain
name. 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 Pavillion
Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000)
(finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission
that they have no
legitimate interest in the domain names).
Furthermore, since Respondent did not
come forward with a Response in this proceeding, Complainant’s allegations are
accepted as true
and all reasonable inferences may be drawn in favor of Complainant. See 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”);
see also
Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM,
D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the Panel to draw
adverse inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply
to the Complaint).
Respondent does not actively use the <postmasterdirectmail.com> domain
name as a website. Respondent uses the
domain name in the context of “spam” mass emailings. Respondent falsely claims that unsolicited emails may be avoided
by sending an email to <unsubscribe@postmasterdirectmail.com>,
which is
an address that returns emails as “undeliverable.” Respondent’s misleading use of the domain name does not represent
a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)
and it
does not constitute a legitimate fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that 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 State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. LaFaive, FA 95407 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2000)
(finding that “unauthorized providing of information and services under a mark
owned by
a third party cannot be said to be the bona fide offering of goods or
services”).
Respondent has shown no business
affiliation with Complainant and Complainant has stated that Respondent is not
authorized to use
Complainant’s POSTMASTERDIRECT mark for any reason. Moreover, Complainant urges that Respondent
is not commonly known by the <postmasterdirectmail.com>
domain name and Respondent has not come forward to challenge those
contentions. Therefore, Respondent has
no rights or legitimate interests in the <postmasterdirectmail.com>
domain name under 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
Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp.,
FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate
interests because Respondent is not commonly known by
the disputed domain name
or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <postmasterdirectmail.com> domain name; thus, Policy ¶
4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent operates in the e-commerce
marketing industry along with Complainant, but Respondent does not seek to send
out marketing
emails to subscribers only.
Respondent sends out emails based on random selection, which is referred
to as “spam” emails. Respondent uses
the <postmasterdirectmail.com> domain
name in its “spam” emails, which tends to blur the line between Complainant and
Respondent. Complainant works hard at
servicing “opt-in” customers only.
Therefore, Respondent’s use of the domain name in its “spam” emails
disrupts Complainant’s business, and is considered 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); see also Lubbock
Radio Paging v. Venture Tele-Messaging, FA 96102 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 23,
2000) (concluding that domain names were registered and used in bad faith where
Respondent and
Complainant were in the same line of business in the same market
area).
In addition, Respondent presumably engages
in this conduct for financial benefit from sending out the “spam” emails. Since Respondent’s services are
substantially similar to Complainant’s and Respondent incorporates the <postmasterdirectmail.com> domain
name in its “spam” emails, there exists a high likelihood of consumer confusion
as to Complainant’s affiliation with Respondent’s
emails. Hence, Respondent’s behavior represents bad
faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 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, with intent
to attract users to a direct competitor of Complainant); 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).
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 name <postmasterdirectmail.com>
be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks
Johnson, Panelist
Dated: October 30, 2002.
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1489.html