Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Lynnhaven Homes Inc. v. Relocation
Director Inc.
Claim Number: FA0210000128233
PARTIES
Complainant
is Lynnhaven Homes Inc., Virginia
Beach, VA (“Complainant”) represented by Kevin
W Grierson, of Willcox & Savage
P.C. Respondent is Relocation Director Inc., Glendora, CA
(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <lynnhavenhomes.com>,
registered with Dotster.com, Inc.
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.
John
J. Upchurch as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on October 16, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on October 18, 2002.
On
October 20, 2002, Dotster.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <lynnhavenhomes.com>
is registered with Dotster.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Dotster.com,
Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dotster.com, 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
October 21, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”),
setting a deadline
of November 11, 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@lynnhavenhomes.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
December 9, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John
J. Upchurch 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
1.
Respondent’s
<lynnhavenhomes.com> domain
name is identical to Complainant’s lynnhaven
Homes mark.
2.
Respondent
does not have rights to or legitimate interests in the <lynnhavenhomes.com> domain name.
3.
Respondent
registered and used the <lynnhavenhomes.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant is a Virginia based
corporation, which produces home building services in the Richmond and
Tidewater areas. Complainant
has formally been incorporated since May of 1992,
and has been using the mark LYNNHAVEN HOMES since February of the same year.
Since
Complainant’s inception, it has expended approximately one million
dollars in advertising the mark LYNNHAVEN HOMES. Complainant has
a vested
interest in the mark and has accumulated substantial good will in the mark.
Respondent registered the domain name on
March 9, 2000. Internet users accessing the <lynnhavenhomes.com> site
are redirected to another site, <relocationsdirector.com>, also
maintained and operated by Respondent. Moreover, when Internet
users access the disputed domain name site, a pop-up box appears proposing the
sale of the domain name registration
to interested parties.
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
One can gain
common law rights within a name by maintaining continuous use of a mark for a
substantial period of time. Complainant’s
accepted unchallenged assertions
plainly state that through continuous use and advertisement, it has acquired
common law rights to
the LYNNHAVEN HOMES mark. See Keppel TatLee Bank v.
Taylor, D2001-0168 (WIPO
Mar. 28, 2001) (“[O]n account of long and substantial use of the said name
[<keppelbank.com>] in connection
with its banking business, it has
acquired rights under the common law); see also Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000)
(finding common law rights in a mark where its use was continuous and ongoing,
and secondary
meaning was established).
Respondent
incorporates Complainant’s entire mark in its domain name, therefore
Respondent’s <lynnhavenhomes.com> domain name
is
identical to Complainant’s LYNNHAVEN HOMES mark. All that must be shown to
prove that the disputed domain name is identical to
the mark is that the domain
name incorporates the entire mark of Complainant and there are no distinct
changes. See World Wrestling Fed’n Entm’t, Inc. v. Rapuano, DTV 2001-0010
(WIPO May 23, 2001) (“The disputed domain names
<worldwrestlingfederation.tv>, <undertaker.tv>, <therock.tv>,
<stonecold.tv> and <austin316.tv> are essentially identical to
Complainant’s marks [WORLD WRESTLING FEDERATION, UNDERTAKER,
AUSTIN 3:16, THE
ROCK, and STONE COLD]”); see also Snow Fun, Inc. v. O'Connor, FA 96578 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 8, 2001)
(finding that the domain name <termquote.com> is identical to
Complainant’s TERMQUOTE
mark).
There is a
presumption that when Internet users are trying to find a company, they merely use
the mark followed by a general top-level
domain, such as “.com.” See
Sporty's Farm L.L.C. vs. Sportsman's Market, Inc., [2000] USCA2 33; 202 F.3d 489 (2d Cir. 2000), cert.
denied, 530 U.S. 1262 (2000) ("For consumers to buy things or
gather information on the Internet, they need an easy way to find particular
companies
or brand names. The most common method of locating an unknown domain
name is simply to type in the company name or logo with the
suffix .com");
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’”).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy
¶ 4(a)(i) has thus been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has not submitted a reply to
Complainant’s allegations, thereby permitting the Panel to conclude that all
reasonable inferences
made by Complainant are true and accurate unless there is
evidence that is clearly contradictory.
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); Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398
(WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that
Complainant’s allegations are true unless
clearly contradicted by the
evidence). There is no evidence that
contradicts the allegations of Complainant.
Complainant has presented evidence that substantiates its claim that
Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the contested
domain name.
Respondent deliberately registered the
disputed domain name to capitalize on Complainant’s commonly known mark, which
designates Complainant
as a producer of home building services. Moreover, it used Complainant’s mark to
divert Internet consumers to another one of its own sites, <relocationdirector.com>.
This site is commercial in nature, and unfairly diverts Internet traffic to
increase business at <relocationdirector.com>.
There are no rights or
legitimate interests when one benefits from the unauthorized use of another’s
mark by diverting Internet traffic
to other websites. 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); 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). Respondent has not established under either Policy ¶
4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) rights or legitimate interests
and conversely, Complainant
has shown that Respondent would be unable to do so even if a Response had been
filed.
There has been no evidence submitted to
indicate that Respondent has a substantial affiliation with, or is known by the
<lynnhavenhomes.com> name. On the other hand, Complainant has
established itself as having legitimate rights and a vested interest in the
mark LYNNHAVEN
HOMES. Moreover, the
Complainant has had rights in the mark that precede the registration of the disputed
domain name. Since Respondent has
not come forward with a rationalization for
its use of Complainant’s mark, and uses an identical domain name to direct
users to another
site, it can be deduced that Respondent has no rights to the
domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM,
D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant;
(2) Complainant’s prior
rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is
not commonly known by the
domain name in question); 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). Respondent has not established under
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that it is commonly known by <lynnhavenhomes.com>,
and alternatively, Complainant has shown that Respondent would be unable
to do so even if a Response had been filed.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy
¶ 4(a)(ii) has thus been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent
registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent has
placed a “for sale” pop-up advertisement
on the website. It is evidence of bad
faith registration and use
under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) when a party purposely obtains the rights in a domain name
in order to re-sell the registration rights of the domain name
for a financial
gain. See Am. Online, Inc. v.
Avrasya Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., FA 93679 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16,
2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent offered domain names for sale); Am.
Anti-Vivisection Soc’y v. “Infa dot Net” Web Serv., FA 95685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 6, 2000)
(finding that “general offers to sell the domain name, even if no certain price
is demanded,
are evidence of bad faith”).
Respondent has prevented Complainant from
reflecting the mark for which it has a vested interest. Complainant provided
evidence to
show that Respondent has made a
pattern out of registering scores of domain names that are similar or identical
to the marks of realty companies
and homebuilders across the United States.
Each of these domain names redirect users to <relocationdirector.com>,
and all are being advertised as “for sale.” The coupling of intent to prevent a
rightful owner of
a mark from reflecting the mark, with a pattern of such
conduct is an indication of bad faith under ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Pep Boys Manny, Moe, & Jack v.
E-Commerce Today, Ltd., AF-0145 (eResolution May 3, 2000) (finding that,
where Respondent registered many domain names, held them hostage, and prevented
the owners from using them, the behavior constituted bad faith); see also
Gamesville.com, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA
95294 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that Respondent engaged in a
pattern of conduct of registering domain names to
prevent the owner of the
trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, which is
evidence of registration and
use in bad faith).
Complainant
also suggests that Respondent has used the domain name in bad faith due to the
fact that Respondent should be considered
a competitor for all intents and
purposes. The definition of competitor should be construed liberally as someone
who simply acts
in opposition to Complainant. 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”). As stated before, the disputed domain
name redirects
Internet traffic to <relocationdirector.com>. At the top
of the page are several menus available, the default choice being
“new homes.”
If an Internet user tries to find new homes in Virginia, a new web page opens
and purports to show “Featured Virginia
Home Builders.” Complainant is not
featured on this list, although Complainant’s competitors are. When Respondent
intentionally diverts
Internet traffic to competitors of Complainant, it is
therefore diverting business, and Respondent is engaging in bad faith under
Policy ¶
4(b)(iii). See EthnicGrocer.com,
Inc. v. Latingrocer.com, FA 94384 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding
bad faith where Respondent’s sites pass users through to Respondent’s competing
business); see also Puckett,
Individually v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that
Respondent has diverted business from Complainant to a competitor’s website in
violation
of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
As stated
previously, Complainant is a well-known new homebuilder and its name and
service mark are know through extensive marketing
and advertising in the area.
Respondent has capitalized on Complainant’s mark by registering and using a
domain name is identical
to Complainant’s mark. According to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv),
evidence of bad faith registration and use is shown when registration of a
domain name occurs in order to utilize another’s established reputation by
attracting Internet users to a website, for commercial
gain. Am.
Online, Inc. v. Tencent Comm. Corp.,
FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent
registered and used an infringing domain name to attract
users to a website
sponsored by Respondent); 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).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy
¶ 4(a)(iii) has thus been satisfied.
DECISION
Having established all three elements
required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel hereby concludes that the requested
relief shall
be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the
domain name <lynnhavenhomes.com> be
TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: December 12, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1659.html