Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
American Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Jesse
Ruffin d/b/a Hartford a/k/a Ruffin Enterprises
Claim Number: FA0209000125264
Complainant
is American Multi-Cinema, Inc.,
Kansas City, MO (“Complainant”) represented by David V. Clark, of Lathrop
& Gage, LC. Respondent is Jesse Ruffin d/b/a Hartford a/k/a Ruffin Enterprises, Dallas, TX (“Respondent”) represented by Stephen L. Anderson, of Anderson & Associates.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <moviewatchers.com>,
registered with Intercosmos Media Group,
Inc. d/b/a directNIC.com.
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.
Bruce
E. Meyerson as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on September 17, 2002; the Forum
received a hard copy of the
Complaint on September 18, 2002.
On
September 17, 2002, Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a directNIC.com confirmed
by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <moviewatchers.com> is registered with Intercosmos Media
Group, Inc. d/b/a directNIC.com and that the Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Intercosmos
Media Group, Inc. d/b/a directNIC.com has verified that Respondent is bound by
the Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a
directNIC.com 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 19, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”),
setting a deadline
of October 9, 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@moviewatchers.com by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on October 8, 2002.
Complainant
filed a timely Additional Submission on October 13, 2002.
On October 30, 2002 pursuant to Complainant’s request to
have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce E.
Meyerson as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant American Multi-Cinema, Inc.
(“Complainant” or “AMC”) states that it currently owns two federal service mark
registrations
for MOVIEWATCHER formative marks. The registration for the MOVIEWATCHER mark claims dates of first
use of February 21, 1990. According to
Complainant, this word mark became incontestable in 1996. The registration for the AMC MOVIEWATCHER
and related design mark claims dates of first use of May 2, 1994. AMC also owns Internet domain names for
<amcmoviewatcher.com> and <moviewatcher.com>, both of which became
effective on
October 2, 1995. AMC uses
both of its registered service marks on the <moviewatcher.com> website,
and has been advertising and promoting its
movie theater services and
frequent-user discounts and rewards program on this website since its inception. According to Complainant, the services
provided under the marks are delivered via the Internet and onsite at AMC
theaters across the
country.
Complainant states that the MovieWatcherÒ program is
advertised and promoted on the Internet at both <moviewatcher.com> and
<amctheaters.com>, as well as through
onsite and other advertising. Complainant contends that Respondent’s <moviewatchers.com> domain name
is virtually identical to, and thus, clearly confusingly similar to,
Complainant’s MOVIEWATCHER mark.
Complainant further contends that Respondent’s use of the <moviewatchers.com> domain name
has not been in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Furthermore, Complainant asserts that no
evidence exists suggesting that Respondent, Jesse Ruffin d/b/a Ruffin
Enterprises, has been
commonly known by the <moviewatchers.com> domain name. Accordingly, Complainant
asserts that Respondent’s <moviewatchers.com>
domain name must be considered as having been registered and used in bad faith
particularly because, according to Complainant, Respondent
has offered on its
website (prior to receiving the cease and desist letter from AMC) to sell the <moviewatchers.com> domain name
registration.
B.
Respondent
Respondent Jesse Ruffin d/b/a
Hartford a/k/a Ruffin
Enterprises claims to have registered the domain name in question more than
five years ago, in August 1997.
Respondent states that he was not aware that Complainant had ever used
either the phrase “MOVIE WATCHER” or its MOVIEWATCHER logo
as a trademark,
domain name or otherwise, and at the time he registered the mark, he did so
without Complainant in mind.
Respondent contends that as applied to online information, goods and
services related to the movie industry and persons who enjoy
watching movies,
the term MOVIE WATCHERS is purely generic as well as indicative of Respondent’s
website contents and its target
audience.
Respondent contends that for nearly five
years before being contacted by Complainant, Respondent had initially used the <moviewatchers.com> domain name
to host a website which has featured “raw real home movies.” Moreover, Respondent argues that for years,
Respondent’s <moviewatchers.com> site has contained links to web
pages for various movie studios (e.g., DreamWorks, Walt Disney Pictures,
Columbia, etc.), and links to other sites.
Furthermore, Respondent contends that the disputed domain name, before
any notice to Respondent by Complainant, contained a link to
a “shopping cart”
that takes a user to a ‘Movie Store’ page which offers, among other things, the
Moviewatchers Membership Card,
and Moviewatchers t-shirts, caps and other
apparel.
Finally, according to Respondent, at no
time did Respondent ever engage in any bad faith or other conduct which would
tarnish the
reputation of Complainant or which would confuse potential visitors
to his own site. Respondent states that
to further avoid any potentially unwanted legal entanglements, and to minimize
any potential confusion which
might occur, he posted several disclaimers
throughout his site which stated: “(we are not AMC).”
C.
Additional Submissions
Complainant contends that Respondent did
not register the <moviewatchers.com>
domain name until sometime after September 24, 2001. Thus, Complainant contends that Respondent had actual knowledge
of AMC’s MOVIEWATCHER mark at the time he registered <moviewatchers.com> and had the domain name registration
transferred into his name. Complainant
points out that Mr. Ruffin admits he joined AMC’s MovieWatcher® Club prior to
September 2001 and therefore, according
to Complainant, presumably had
knowledge of Complainant’s marks.
Complainant has received several e-mail
inquiries which, according to Complainant, reflect that actual confusion exists
among consumers
regarding whether or not Respondent’s <moviewatchers.com> website is operated, sponsored, endorsed
by or otherwise affiliated with AMC and its MovieWatcher® Club. These e-mails reflect, according to
Complainant, that AMC customers have visited Respondent’s site thinking it to
be part of AMC’s
MovieWatcher® Club, and in some instances, have even made
payments on their credit cards to Respondent thinking that they were joining
AMC’s MovieWatcher® Club.
FINDINGS
The record
reflects that Complainant’s MOVIEWATCHER mark has become well-known and
famous. The MovieWatcherÒ program has
grown from 463,651 members in 1992 to more than 3.9 million members today. During the fiscal year 2002, attendance by
MovieWatcherÒ members was 19,795,602 or 13.2% of AMC’s total audience, and
MovieWatcherÒ members accounted for 25% of all AMC tickets sold via the Internet.
AMC
currently owns the following federal service mark registrations for
MOVIEWATCHER formative marks:
Mark Title |
Reg. # |
Reg. Date |
Class |
Goods |
MOVIEWATCHER |
1,635,775 |
02-19-1991 |
041 |
Movie theater
services featuring frequent-user discounts |
AMC MOVIE
WATCHER AND DESIGN |
2,105,183 |
10-14-1997 |
041 |
Movie theater
services featuring frequent-user discounts |
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
Respondent’s <moviewatchers.com> domain name
is virtually identical to Complainant’s MOVIEWATCHER mark. While Respondent’s <moviewatchers.com> domain name contains an “s,” that minor
difference is not significant enough to distinguish the domain name from
Complainant’s MOVIEWATCHER
word mark. See InfoSpace.com, Inc. v. Registrar
Administrator Lew Blanck, No. D2000-0069 (WIPO April 3, 2000)
(<infospaces.com> found confusingly similar to the mark INFOSPACE). Similarly, the fact that Respondent’s domain
name contains the “.com” top-level domain does not affect the inquiry as to
whether it
is confusingly similar to the MOVIEWATCHER word mark. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady,
No. D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000)(finding that the top-level of the domain
name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain
name for the purpose
of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
Respondent
seeks to answer this argument with the contention that the term “Movie
Watchers” has become generic. There is
a split of authority on the question of whether ICANN panels are authorized to
consider a respondent’s defense that the complainant’s
registered trademark has
become generic. R. Badgley, Domain Name Disputes § 7.11 n. 160 (2002). Although it is possible that a mark that was
distinctive can become generic, it will become so only if the “relevant public
ceases
to identify a trademark with a particular source of product or service
but instead identifies the mark with a class of products or
services regardless
of source.” Creative Gifts, Inc. v. UFO, [2000] USCA10 353; 235 F.3d 540, 544 (10th
Cir. 2000).
The Panel
concludes, however, that it need not reach this issue because Complainant has
demonstrated, without rebuttal from Respondent,
that its mark has become
incontestable. Although the
incontestable nature of the mark may not be questioned, the “strength” of the
mark may be questioned. Thus, for
example, if Respondent was using the mark in a totally unrelated industry, the
incontestability of the mark might not be
relevant. Because, however, Respondent is using the mark in a domain name
where he offers goods and services similar to those offered by Complainant,
the
Panel concludes that the incontestability of the mark constitutes a defense to
Respondent’s contention that the term “Movie Watchers”
has become generic.
Rights or
Legitimate Interests
Respondent
contends that he has a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name because
he has “aptly and fairly” used the name
for more than five years in connection
with a bona fide offering of movies and related services. Thus, Respondent contends that he meets the
requirement of Policy 4(c)(i)—before notice of the dispute, he used or prepared
to use
the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection
with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Although Policy
paragraph 4(c) sets forth three circumstances that can demonstrate a
respondent’s rights or legitimate interests,
there is a line of authority
indicating that an infringement by a respondent in connection with a
complainant’s rights in its mark
conclusively demonstrates that a respondent
has no rights in the domain name. E.g., AutoNation, Inc. v. Sticky Web, Inc., D2001-0442 (WIPO June 18,
2001); The Chase Manhattan Corp. v.
Whitely, D2000-0346 (June 12, 2000).
Complainant has made the requisite showing of infringement thus
establishing that Respondent can have no rights or legitimate interests
in the
domain name.
Registration
and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant contends that Respondent has
registered the <moviewatchers.com>
domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of AMC,
thereby evidencing bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). The record reflects that Respondent is
competing with Complaint by providing movie reviews, a card and membership to
his <moviewatchers.com>
website, and updates on the latest movies and a newsletter for his
members.
There is also evidence that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract,
for commercial gain, Internet users to his website
by creating a likelihood of
confusion with Complainant’s MOVIEWATCHER mark. Indeed, the record contains several e-mail inquiries reflecting
that actual confusion exists among consumers regarding whether or
not
Respondent’s <moviewatchers.com>
website is operated, sponsored, endorsed by or otherwise affiliated with AMC
and its MovieWatcher® Club. These
e-mails reflect that Complainant’s customers have visited Respondent’s website
thinking it to be part of Complainant’s MovieWatcher®
Club, and in some
instances, have even made payments on their credit cards to Respondent thinking
that they were joining Complainant’s
MovieWatcher® Club in doing so. This evidence supports Complainant’s contention
of bad faith.
DECISION
It is ordered
that the domain name <moviewatchers.com>
be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E.
Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: November 13, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1549.html