Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Jim Karas v. Jim Karashavaran
Claim Number: FA0209000124992
PARTIES
Complainant
is Jim Karas, Chicago, IL, USA
(“Complainant”) represented by Sean S.
Swidler, of Michael Best &
Friedrich LLC. Respondent is Jim Karashavaran, Piralasharey, Kerala,
INDIA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <jimkaras.com>,
registered with Dotster.
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.
James
P. Buchele, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on September 10, 2002; the Forum
received a hard copy of the
Complaint on September 11, 2002.
On
September 12, 2002, Dotster confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <jimkaras.com> is
registered with Dotster and that Respondent is the current registrant of the
name. Dotster has verified that
Respondent is bound by the Dotster 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 20, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”),
setting a deadline
of October 10, 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@jimkaras.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 30, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James
P. Buchele 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
The
<jimkaras.com>
domain name is identical to Complainant's JIM KARAS mark.
Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent
registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
failed to submit a Response.
FINDINGS
Complainant, Jim Karas, is a well-known
physical fitness trainer and author of physical fitness articles, columns and
the best-selling
book Business Plan for the Body, listed on The New
York Times Best Seller list for the week of June 10, 2001. Complainant has been featured in numerous
widely distributed periodicals and newspaper articles, news reports and
web-distributed
stories, and had made numerous television appearances. Complainant began receiving media coverage
as a renowned physical fitness guru as early as 1991. Complainant was named as one of the best personal trainers in
America by Allure magazine in 1998.
Complainant is also the proprietor of the Chicago-based physical fitness
consultancy firm Solo Sessions.
Before Respondent registered the disputed
domain name Complainant was featured in magazines and newspapers such as USA
Today, Self, Chicago Tribune, Good Housekeeping, Chicago
Sun-Times, Detroit News, Dallas Morning News, Detroit Free
Press, Chicago Magazine, Tycoon, Time, US and More. Complainant also appeared on television
on the shows Good Morning America, Entertainment Tonite, Access
Hollywood, Fox News, and The Good Life.
Respondent registered the disputed domain
name on January 2, 2002. On August 26,
2002, Complainant sent an email and letter to the disputed domain name’s
technical contact Binoj George. The
email was not returned as undeliverable, and the letter was delivered and
signed for by Mr. George. The only
response received by Complainant in relation to these communications was an
email wishing Complainant good luck in these
proceedings. Around September 10, 2002, after Mr. George
knew of Complainant’s intention to file a Complaint in relation to the disputed
domain
name, the registration record for the disputed domain name was changed
to reflect the name Jim Karashavaran.
Respondent has not made any use of the disputed domain name and there is
currently no website at the <jimkaras.com> domain name.
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 he has
common law rights in his name JIM KARAS based on his celebrity status as a
fitness guru. Complainant, a well-known
personal trainer, uses his name in order to advertise his services and has
provided significant evidence
of the goodwill associated with his name. 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). See also Roberts v. Boyd, D2000-0210 (WIPO May 29, 2000) (finding that
trademark registration was not necessary and that the name “Julia Roberts” has
sufficient
secondary association with Complainant that common law trademark
rights exist).
Furthermore, Respondent’s <jimkaras.com>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s JIM KARAS mark because it
incorporates Complainant’s entire common law mark and merely
adds the generic
top-level domain “.com” to the end. The
addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant because it is a required component
of every domain name and therefore does not add
any distinctive qualities
capable of overcoming a claim of identical or confusingly similarity. See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding
<pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s mark because the generic
top-level domain
(gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant); see
also Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, [2002] USCA9 115; 279 F.3d 1135,
1146 (9th
Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) (“Internet users searching for a company’s [w]ebsite . . .
assume, as a rule of thumb, that the domain name
of a particular company will
be the company name [or trademark] followed by ‘.com.’”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has
been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has failed to respond,
therefore it is assumed that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests
in the disputed domain
name. When
Complainant asserts a prima facie case against Respondent, the burden of
proof shifts to Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests
pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). 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 Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000)
(finding that by not submitting a response, the Respondent has failed to invoke
any circumstance
which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in
the domain name).
Furthermore, because Respondent has not
submitted a Response, it is appropriate for the Panel to accept all reasonable
allegations
and inferences in the Complaint as true. See 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); 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 has made no use of the disputed
domain name since it registered it in January of 2002. Respondent has therefore held the disputed
domain name for almost one year without creating a website, or using the domain
name for
any other purpose. The failure
to use a domain name for such a length of time without a demonstrable attempt
to use it for any purpose is considered
to be passive holding. Passive holding of a domain name does not
give rise to rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Am. Home Prod. Corp. v. Malgioglio, D2000-1602 (WIPO Feb. 19, 2001)
(finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name
<solgarvitamins.com> where Respondent
merely passively held the domain
name); see also 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
names in any way).
Furthermore, Respondent has failed to
come forward in this proceeding and present any proof that it is commonly known
as “Jim Karas,”
or <jimkaras.com>. Therefore, Respondent has failed to establish that it has any
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name 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
Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union
Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate
interest where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and
never applied
for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Based on the fact that Respondent
registered the disputed domain name after the release of Complainant’s book and
many of Complainant’s
public appearances it can be inferred that Respondent had
knowledge of Complainant’s identity and therefore was on notice of
Complainant’s
rights in his own name when it registered the disputed domain
name. Registration of a domain name,
despite knowledge of Complainant’s rights, is evidence of bad faith
registration pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(a)(iii).
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"); see also 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).
Respondent has made no use of the
disputed domain name since its registration in January of 2002. Therefore, Respondent is engaging in the
passive holding of <jimkaras.com>, which is evidence of bad faith
use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See
DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp.,
D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the Respondent’s passive
holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of
¶ 4(a)(iii) of the
Policy); see also Clerical Med. Inv.
Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding
that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute
use in
bad faith).
Furthermore, based on the goodwill
Complainant has established for his name, any use by Respondent of the disputed
domain name would
not be legitimate and would represent opportunistic bad faith
on the part of Respondent pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Red Bull GmbH v. Gutch, D2000-0766 (WIPO Sept. 21, 2000) (finding
that Respondent’s expected use of the domain name <redbull.org> would
lead people
to believe that the domain name was connected with Complainant, and
thus is the equivalent to bad faith use); see also Albrecht v. Natale, FA 95465 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2000)
(finding registration in bad faith based where there is no reasonable
possibility, and
no evidence from which to infer that the domain name was
selected at random since it entirely incorporated Complainant’s name).
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 <jimkaras.com> be
transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
James P. Buchele, Panelist
Dated:
November 4, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1504.html