Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Geoffrey, Inc. v. no aka Michele Dinoia
Claim Number: FA0201000104089
PARTIES
Complainant
is Geoffrey, Inc. Paramus, NJ, USA (“Complainant”)
represented by Roberta S. Bren, of Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier &
Neustadt, P.C.. Respondent is Michele Dinoia, Pineto, ITALY
(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <kidsrus.com>,
registered with Tucows, Inc.
PANEL
On
February 22, 2002 pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James
P. Buchele as Panelist. 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.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on January 24, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on January 25, 2002.
On
January 24, 2002, Tucows, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <kidsrus.com> is
registered with Tucows, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of
the name. Tucows, Inc. has verified
that Respondent is bound by the Tucows, 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
January 28, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”),
setting a deadline
of February 18, 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@kidsrus.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.
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
Respondent's <kidsrus.com> domain name is
identical to Complainant's KIDS "R" US 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 KIDS
"R" US mark in commerce since 1983 in relation to wearing apparel,
retail department store
services, entertainment and children's sports
competitions. Complainant registered
the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in 1994
(Registration No. 1,270,000). Complainant
is also the owner of numerous other
marks that incorporate "R" US.
Complainant and its affiliated companies have expended hundreds of millions
of dollars annually to advertise, publicize and promote
its "R US"
family of marks.
Complainant used the KIDS "R"
US mark on the Internet as <kidsrus.com> from 1999 until October
2001. The domain name was inadvertently
allowed to lapse.
Respondent registered the disputed domain
name on January 8, 2002. Respondent is
using the disputed domain name in order to divert Internet users to a website
advertising for Nextcard Visa.
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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant
has rights; and
(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
Complainant, through continuous use and
registration has established that it has rights in the KIDS "R" US
mark. Furthermore, Respondent's <kidsrus.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because it merely
deletes the quotation marks from the R.
This change is not significant enough to create a distinct mark capable
of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity.
See Chi-Chi’s Inc. v. Rest.
Commentary, D2000-0321 (WIPO June 29, 2000) (finding the domain name
<chichis.com> to be identical to Complainant’s CHI-CHI’S mark, despite
the omission of the apostrophe and hyphen from the mark).
Furthermore, the addition of a generic
top-level domain name such as ".com" does not create a distinct mark,
nor is it relevant
when determining identical or confusing 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 Teleplace,
Inc. v. De Oliveira, FA 95835 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that
the domain names <teleplace.com>, <tele-place.com>, and
<theteleplace.com>
are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TELEPLACE
trademark).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has
been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has failed to come forward
with a Response and therefore it is presumed that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests
in the disputed domain name. See Pavillion
Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000)
(finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission
that they have no
legitimate interest in the domain names).
Furthermore, when Respondent fails to
submit a Response the Panel is permitted to make all inferences in favor of
Complainant. See Talk City, Inc.
v. Robertson, D2000-0009, (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000)
(“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all
allegations of the Complaint”).
Finally, based on the fame of
Complainant's KIDS "R" US mark it would be very difficult for
Respondent to show that it had
rights and legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name. Any use by Respondent of
the <kidsrus.com> domain name, confusingly similar to Complainant's
famous mark, would be an opportunistic attempt to attract customer's via
Complainant's
famous mark. Furthermore,
this type of use is not considered to be a bona fide offering of goods or
services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See 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).
Based on the fame of Complainant's mark,
and the fact that Respondent has presented no evidence to prove that it is
commonly known
by the disputed domain name, it can be inferred that Respondent
is not commonly known by <kidsrus.com> pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii) and therefore, has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name. See CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone, D2000-0397 (WIPO June
19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or
legitimate interests in the <twilight-zone.net>
domain name since
Complainant had been using the TWILIGHT ZONE mark since 1959); see also Victoria’s
Secret et al 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).
Respondent is intentionally diverting
Internet users to its website for its own commercial gain and is therefore not
making legitimate
noncommercial, or fair use of the disputed domain pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Kosmea Pty Ltd. v. Krpan, D2000-0948
(WIPO Oct. 3, 2000) (finding no rights in the domain name where Respondent has
an intention to divert consumers of Complainant’s
products to Respondent’s site
by using Complainant’s mark); see also 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).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The <kidsrus.com> domain
name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark and the Internet user will
likely believe that there is an affiliation
between Respondent and
Complainant. Registration of the
confusingly similar <kidsrus.com> domain name is evidence of bad
faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409
(WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that bad faith registration and use where it is
“inconceivable that the respondent could
make any active use of the disputed
domain names without creating a false impression of association with the
Complainant”).
Furthermore, because of the famous and
distinctive nature of Complainant's KIDS "R" US mark, Respondent is
thought to have
been on notice of the existence of Complainant's mark at the
time Respondent registered the infringing <kidsrus.com> domain
name. See Samsonite Corp. v.
Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (evidence of bad
faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of commonly known mark
at the
time of registration); see also
Victoria's Secret et al v. Hardin, FA 96694 (Nat Arb. Forum Mar. 31, 2001)
(finding that, in light of the notoriety of Complainants' famous marks,
Respondent had actual
or constructive knowledge of the BODY BY VICTORIA marks
at the time she registered the disputed domain name and such knowledge
constitutes
bad faith).
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 <kidsrus.com> be transferred from Respondent to
Complainant.
James P. Buchele, Panelist
Dated: February 25, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/292.html