Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Kmart of Michigan, Inc. v. Azra Khan
Claim Number: FA0210000127708
PARTIES
Complainant
is Kmart of Michigan, Inc., Troy,
MI, USA (“Complainant”) represented by Robert
S. Gurwin, of Rader, Fishman &
Grauer PLLC. Respondent is Azra Khan, Rawalpindi, PAKISTAN
(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <bigkmart.com>,
registered with DotRegistrar.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.
James
A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on October 7, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on October 7, 2002.
On
October 7, 2002, DotRegistrar.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <bigkmart.com> is
registered with DotRegistrar.com and that Respondent is the current registrant
of the name. DotRegistrar.com has
verified that Respondent is bound by the DotRegistrar.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
October 8, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of October 28,
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@bigkmart.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
November 19, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed
James A. Carmody, Esq.,
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
<bigkmart.com> domain name is
identical to Complainant's BIG KMART 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 has used the KMART mark since
1961 in relation to its chain of discount stores. Complainant was one of the first retailers to offer an entire marketplace
in one discount location, and inspired other discount merchandisers
such as
Wal-mart, Target and Kohl’s do to the same.
In 1996, Complainant completely
redesigned most of its stores in the United States. Complainant created a pantry department selling frequently
purchased consumable goods near the front of each store, and placed a new
emphasis on the Children’s Clothes and Home Fashions departments. These changes were signified by the adoption
of a new trademark to identify the remodeled stores; this trademark was
Complainant’s
BIG KMART mark. By 1998,
Complainant had opened 1,245 BIG KMART stores.
Complainant registered its BIG KMART mark
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as Registration Number
2,288,771 on October
26, 1999.
Complainant has had a presence on the
Internet since 1997 at <kmart.com>.
Complainant’s website continues to serve as a vital worldwide
information and shopping channel for Complainant. Complainant’s website received over 6 million visitor sessions and
20 million page views in the month of August 2002.
Respondent registered the disputed domain
name on April 24, 2002. Respondent is
using the disputed domain name in order to divert Internet traffic to
<ownbox.com/treasure/shop.htm> where there
is a website that features
links to online casinos and shopping, as well as adult entertainment. When an Internet user attempts to close this
screen another website located at <digforgold.com.index.htm> pops up displaying
more shopping and gambling links. Respondent
does not have a license from Complainant to use the BIG KMART mark.
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 BIG KMART mark through extensive use and its registration with
the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
Respondent’s <bigkmart.com>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates
Complainant’s entire mark and merely adds the generic
top-level domain
“.com.” The addition of a top-level
domain does not add any distinctive qualities to the mark because it is a
required feature of every domain
name.
Therefore, Complainant’s mark is the dominant feature of the disputed
domain name and Respondent does not overcome a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
identical
analysis. See 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.’”); see also Rollerblade,
Inc. v. McCrady, 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).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has
been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
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). Respondent has failed to respond, therefore
it is assumed that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the
disputed 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 Parfums
Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that
by not submitting a Response, 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 is using a domain name that is
identical to Complainant’s mark in order to attract Internet users to a website
that features
links to various Internet websites, including online gambling
casinos, adult entertainment and shopping.
Internet users are likely to be confused as to the source, sponsorship,
and affiliation of this domain name and therefore Respondent’s
activities are
causing a likelihood of confusion for Respondent’s commercial gain. This type of use 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 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 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).
There is no evidence that Respondent is
commonly known as BIG KMART or <bigkmart.com>. There is no use of the mark on Respondent’s
websites, and Respondent has not come forward with any facts that would prove
that it
is known as BIG KMART. In light
of the fame of Complainant’s mark it is necessary for Respondent to come
forward with some evidence that establishes that
it is commonly known by the
disputed domain name. Respondent has
failed to prove that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
See Victoria’s Secret v.
Asdak, FA 96542 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2001) (finding sufficient proof
that Respondent was not commonly known by a domain name confusingly
similar to
Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark because of Complainant’s well-established
use of the mark); see also Nike,
Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, D2000-1397 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding no rights
or legitimate interests where one “would be hard pressed to find a person who
may show a right or legitimate interest” in a domain name containing
Complainant's distinct and famous NIKE trademark).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent is using a domain name
identical to Complainant’s mark in order to divert Internet users to two
different websites that
feature links to various online casinos, shopping and
adult websites throughout the Internet.
It can be inferred that Respondent makes a profit from the amount of
Internet traffic it diverts to these websites.
Therefore, Respondent is commercially benefiting from the likelihood of
confusion it has created through the use of Complainant’s
mark, and
Respondent’s actions evidence 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 Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent directed Internet users
seeking Complainant’s site
to its own website for commercial gain).
Furthermore, based on the fame of
Complainant’s mark, and the fact that Respondent chose Complainant’s mark in
order to attract Internet
users to its website, it can be inferred that
Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BIG KMART mark
when
it registered the disputed domain name.
Registration of an infringing domain name despite actual knowledge of
Complainant’s rights is evidence of bad faith 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).
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 <bigkmart.com> be
transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: November 22, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1592.html