Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Stanley Logistics, Inc. v.
Motherboards.com
Claim Number: FA0210000128068
PARTIES
Complainant is Stanley Logistics, Inc., New Britain, CT (“Complainant”)
represented by Jennifer L. Myron, of Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn PLLC. Respondent is Motherboards.com, College Station, TX (“Respondent”) represented
by W. Joe Mize, of Robichaux, Mize & Wadsack, LLC.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED
DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bostitch.com>, registered with Enom.
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.
Judge Irving H. Perluss (Retired) is the
Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the
National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on October 11, 2002;
the Forum received
a hard copy of the Complaint on October 15, 2002.
On October 15, 2002, Enom confirmed by
e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <bostitch.com>
is registered with Enom and that the Respondent is the current registrant of
the name. Enom has verified that
Respondent is bound by the Enom 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 16, 2002, a Notification of
Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement
Notification”),
setting a deadline of November 5, 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@bostitch.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and
determined to be complete on October 30, 2002.
Complainant filed a timely Additional
Submission on November 4, 2002.
On November 14,
2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Judge Irving H. Perluss (Retired) as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name
be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
1.
Complainant
Stanley Logistics, Inc. has registered the trademark BOSTITCH with the United
States Patent and Trademark Office as follows:
BOSTICH, U.S. Reg. No. 0135920, in International
Class 7, used in connection with wire stitching and stapling machines and parts
thereof,
since at least as early as November 1919.
BOSTITCH, U.S. Reg. No. 0226587, in International
class 6, used in connection with staples for tacking, stitching and binding,
since at least
as early as July 1923.
BOSTITCH, U.S. Reg. No. 0836565, in International
Class 6, used in connection with metal connector plate used in building
construction, since
at least as early as June 1965.
BOSTITCH, U.S. Reg. No. 0857786, in International
Class 6, used in connection with nails and staples for tacking, stitching and
binding, and
metal connector plates, and in International Class 7, used in
connection with wire stitching and stapling machines, staple removers,
and
nailing machines, since at least as early as November 1919.
BOSTITCH, U.S. Reg. No. 0992801, in International
Class 7, used in connection with wire stitching, stapling, and tacking
machines, since at
least as early as November 1919.
BOSTITCH, U.S. Reg. No. 1252725, in International
Class 7, used in connection with air compressors, since at least as early as
1961, and in
International Class 16, used in connection with pencil sharpeners,
since at least as early as November 1980.
BOSTITCH, U.S. Reg. No. 1280252, in International
Class 7, used in connection with numbering machines, since at least as early as
July 1964.
BOSTITCH, U.S. Reg. No. 1459822, in International
Class 6, used in connection with metal cash boxes with locks, since at least as
early as
February 1984.
BOSTITCH, U.S. Reg. No. 1857473, in International
Class 6, used in connection with metal stitching wire, since at least as early
as July 1935,
in International Class 7, used in connection with pneumatic screw
mailers; air-operated hog ring tools; air-operated carton top closers;
air-operated carton sealers; strapping machines; hot melt adhesive guns, since
at least as early as April 1985, and in International
Class 16, used in
connection with office requisites; namely, staplers, rotary and tray files,
stretch film and applicators for packaging,
since at least as early as 1910.
2.
Complainant,
Stanley Logistics, Inc. (“Stanley”) is one of the world’s leading manufacturers
and marketers of tools, hardware and
specialty hardware products for home
improvement, consumer, industrial and professional use. The BOSTITCH mark has become famous and is
identified by consumers as the source of high-quality tools.
3.
Respondent
registered the disputed domain name <bostitch.com>, which is
identical to Complainant’s famous BOSTITCH mark, on or about February 8, 1999.
4.
When an
Internet user enters the domain name <bostitch.com>, the user’s
web browser is automatically redirected to Amazon.com’s Stanley BOSTITCH
“Brand” page. Respondent registered the
<bostitch.com> domain name with Amazon.com’s Associate program,
which allows Associates to link to the <amazon.com> website and earn up
to 15% in referral fees.
5.
Cease and
desist letters were sent to Respondent on August 11, August 21, and September
6, 2002.
6.
In a letter
dated September 11, 2002, Complainant offered to pay $100.00 to reimburse
Respondent for registration fees in exchange
for transfer of the disputed
domain name.
7.
Respondent
replied to counsel’s offer by refusing to transfer the domain name for $100.00,
and admitting that it currently earns approximately
$300.00 every month by
using the domain name to profit from Complainant’s mark.
8.
Respondent’s
unauthorized, commercial use of the domain name as a link to <amazon.com>
and as an Amazon.com Associate site amounts
to bad faith registration and use.
9.
Respondent’s
registration and use of the disputed domain name creates a false impression
that Complainant is affiliated with Respondent. This misuse by Respondent of another company’s trademark is
evidence of bad faith intent to profit from Complainant’s well-known BOSTITCH
mark.
10.
Respondent
refuses to transfer the name to Complainant unless he receives monetary
compensation far in excess of the out-of-pocket
costs related to registration
of the domain name.
11.
Respondent
registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith, and has no rights or
legitimate interest in the disputed domain
name. Respondent cannot, in good faith, claim that he or his goods or
services are commonly known by the name BOSTITCH. Additionally, Respondent is not making any legitimate,
noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, but rather, registered the disputed
domain name solely to trade upon and profit from the goodwill created in
Complainant’s BOSTITCH mark.
B. Respondent
1.
Respondent
does not contend that the disputed domain name is not identical to
Complainant’s registered marks.
2.
Paragraph
4(c) of the Policy provides that Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in
a domain name may be demonstrated by proof
of:
(i)
before any
notice to you of the dispute, your use, or demonstrable preparations to use,
the domain name or a name corresponding to
the domain name in connection with a
bona fide offering of goods or
services.
Prior to notice to Respondent, it used
the name in a bona fide offering of
goods or services. When the URL is
entered, the Internet user is directed to the Stanley/Bostitch section of the
<amazon.com> site where Complainant’s
tools are openly displayed for
sale. Respondent merely receives a
commission for each sale that is made as a result of a hit using the <bostitch.com>
domain name. Respondent set up this
arrangement in May of 2001. Since that
time, thousands of dollars of Complainant’s tools have been sold and it has
reaped the benefit of this arrangement.
As a reseller of Bostitch products manufactured by Stanley, Respondent
asserts that it has a legitimate interest in the Internet domain
name <bostitch.com>.
Complainant has lost no sales. If anything, logic dictates that
Complainant’s sales have increased as a result of <motherboards.com> directing the name to <amazon.com>.
3.
Respondent
submits that this matter and the Weber-Stephens Prods. Co. v. Armitage
Hardware, D2000-0197 (WIPO May 11, 2000) proceeding are factually and
legally identical. In that case, the
Complainant was the owner of several U.S. Trademark Registrations for several
variations of the mark WEBER and the
manufacturer of “Weber” grills and related
products and services. Respondent was
the owner of a hardware store which owned or operated websites under the domain
name <weber.com> and several
variations.
It used its websites to promote the sale of Weber’s products. In ruling in favor of the Respondent, the
Panel held as follows:
This Panel is satisfied that Respondent
has presented sufficient evidence to prove that it has used the domain name in
connection with the bona fide offering of Complainant’s goods or services. It is apparent from the Respondent’s web
page that Respondent is selling Complainant’s goods under Complainant’s
registered trademark.
. . .
This Panel concludes that Complainant has
failed to prove that Respondent’s registration and use of the domain names was
in ‘bad faith.’
In the instant matter, as in Weber,
the evidence is overwhelming that Respondent is not trying to confuse the
public, it is selling Complainant’s goods under Complainant’s
trademark.
4. Respondent did not register the
disputed domain name in bad faith.
a.
The name
was not registered to sell to Complainant.
b.
Respondent
did not register the disputed domain name to prevent Complainant from using
it. The disputed domain name was
available from 1996 until February 1999.
c.
The
disputed domain name was not registered to disrupt Complainant’s business or
that of a competitor.
d.
Complainant
has not shown that by using the domain name, Respondent intentionally attempted
to attract, for commercial gain, Internet
users to its website or other on-line
location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to
the source, sponsorship,
affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location
or of a product or service on your website or location.
Complainant asserts that Respondent is
making $300.00 per month and is thus profiting from Complainant’s mark. This is not bad faith, rather it is a
legitimate offering of Complainant’s goods.
See Weber-Stephen Prods. Co. v. Armitage Hardware, D2000-0817
(WIPO May 11, 2000); ABIT Computer Corp. v. Motherboard Super
Store, Inc., D2000-0399 (WIPO Aug. 8, 2000); Columbia ParCar Corp. v. S.
Brustas GmbH, D2001-0779 (WIPO Aug. 23, 2001).
e.
Respondent’s
registration and use of the domain name does not create a false impression that
Complainant is affiliated with Respondent.
A mere cursory review of the <amazon.com> website reveals that it
does not create a false impression that there is affiliation. There is no confusion created when the
website at <bostitch.com> is accessed. There is no reference to Respondent’s name at the site. Complainant’s tools are openly displayed for
sale as they are on many other sites on the web. Further, Complainant has submitted no proof of any confusion from
any consumer. Respondent’s use of the
domain name is consistent with the ordinary use by a retailer of a
manufacturer’s trademark in connection
with the sale of that manufacturer’s
genuine goods.
C. Additional Submission by Complainant
1.
The Weber
decision is distinguished because it was largely influenced by the following
determinative factors: (1) respondent,
a hardware store, was an authorized reseller of WEBER products; (2)
respondent’s website was approved several times
over a period of time by the
trademark owner/complainant; and (3) respondent was duly licensed to use the
WEBER trademark in connection
with its advertising and sales of the
complainant’s products.
2.
In contrast
to
Weber, Respondent in this matter is not an authorized Stanley
reseller, for any of Stanley’s products, including BOSTITCH-branded goods. The only way that Respondent is a “reseller”
is through his use of the BOSTITCH mark in connection with the domain name at
issue.
3.
Respondent’s
registration and use of the disputed domain name creates a false impression
that Complainant is affiliated with Respondent. This misuse is exacerbated by the fact that Respondent has failed
to use the disputed domain name to create and/or design a legitimate,
non-commercial site and has failed to demonstrate that it uses the disputed
domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of
goods or services. Complainant submits that a mere redirect to
the <amazon.com> site is not sufficient to demonstrate a bona fide use of
the disputed
domain name in connection with the legitimate offering of Stanley
products for sale. Respondent is not in
the business of selling hardware products, and cannot, in good faith, claim
that its goods or services are commonly
known by the name BOSTITCH.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
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
It is conceded that the disputed domain
name is identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous and
distinctive marks, and
the Panelist so finds and concludes.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
It does appear and it is found that
Respondent entered into an arrangement with Amazon in May 2001, providing that
when the disputed
domain name (i.e.,
<bostitch.com>) is entered, the Internet user will be directed to
the Stanley/Bostitch section of the <amazon.com> website where Complainant’s
tools are displayed for sale. For each
sale using the disputed domain name, Respondent receives a commission.
Respondent contends that it has rights
and a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name because before any notice
to him of the
dispute (i.e., August
2002), he was using the disputed domain name in connection with the bona fide
offering of goods (i.e., May 2001),
thus falling within the protection of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).
The rub, however, is the phrase “bona
fide,” which is defined in Webster’s
Ninth Collegiate Dictionary (1984) at page 166, as “made in good faith and
without fraud or deceit.”
If the registration and use of the
disputed domain name were not in good faith, it must follow that Respondent
does not have rights
or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
The Panel must, accordingly, turn to the
issue of registration and use in bad faith.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent contends that, with respect to
the bad faith issue, he falls within the ambit of such decisions as Weber-Stephen
Prods. Co. v. Armitage Hardware, D2000-0187 (WIPO May 11, 2000); ABIT
Computer Corp. v. Motherboard Super Store, Inc., D2000-0399 (WIPO Aug. 8,
2000); and Columbia ParCar Corp. v.
Brustas GmbH, D20001-0779 (WIPO Aug. 23, 2001), where Panels were reluctant
to find a lack of legitimate rights and interest and bad faith when the
dealer registers and uses a domain name incorporating Complainant’s trademark
for the sale of Complainant’s
goods.[1]
Complainant asserts, however, that in each
of these cases there was involved an inclusive and authorized dealer, who, with
the knowledge
and consent of the trademark owner, used the trademark for the
promotion of Complainant’s product.
Respondent here, Complainant asserts, has never been an authorized
dealer, and is using the mark deceptively and commercially without
Complainant’s permission.
The Panel believes that there is a more
pertinent reason as to why the disputed domain name was registered and is being
used in bad
faith.
The Panelist knows that when the domain
name <stanley.bostitch.com> is entered and is followed by a click of
“Where to Buy,”
there are displayed the domain names of retailers, to wit,
<amigos.com>, <grainger.com>, <doitbest.com>, <sears.com>,
<thehomedepot.com>, and <lowes.com> as Internet vendors.
If, on the other hand, the disputed
domain name <bostitch.com> is entered, only the retailer Amazon
appears as an Internet vendor.
It follows, and the Panel finds, that
Respondent through the use of the disputed domain name combined with its
agreement with Amazon,
has placed itself, without the consent of Complainant,
in a preferred position with respect to other distributors and which can cause
consumer confusion. See, to this
effect, Mikimoto (America) co. v. Asanti Fine Jewellers, Ltd. AF-0126
(eResolution April 8, 2000).
It is the conclusion of the Panel,
accordingly, that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name
in bad faith falling
specifically within Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy,
which , without limitation, defines “bad faith” as follows:
by using the domain name, you have
intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your
website or other
on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with
the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or
endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your
website or location.
It is found and concluded that Respondent
has no legitimate interest or rights to the disputed domain name, and did
register and is
using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
DECISION
Based on the above findings and
conclusions, and pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(i), it is decided that the domain name
<bostitch.com> be and the same is ordered TRANSFERRED to
Complainant Stanley Logistics, Inc.
JUDGE IRVING H. PERLUSS
(Retired), Panelist
Dated: December 2, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1634.html