Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Geoffrey, Inc. v. Downmark Ltd., J
Highmoor and George Highmoor
Claim Number: FA0201000103815
PARTIES
The Complainant is Geoffrey, Inc., Arlington, VA (“Complainant”) represented by Roberta S. Bren, of Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C. The Respondent is Downmark Ltd., J Highmoor and George Highmoor, Norfolk, United
Kingdom (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED
DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <appointments-r-us.com>, <bars-r-us.com>, <bars-r-us.net>, <bistros-r-us.net>,
<burgers-r-us.net>, <cafes-r-us.com>, <carphones-r-us.com>, <carphones-r-us.net>,
<cellphones-r-us.com>, <cellphones-r-us.net>,
<cycles-r-us.com>,
<destinations-r-us.com>,
<destinations-r-us.net>, <drinks-r-us.com>,
<golfclubs-r-us.com>, <gyms-r-us.com>,
<inns-r-us.com>,
<internetsales-r-us.com>, <jetskis-r-us.com>,
<lodges-r-us.com>, <netsales-r-us.com>,
<net-sales-r-us.com>,
<recipes-r-us.com>, <restaurants-r-us.net>,
<r-us-domains.com>, <shades-r-us.com>,
<telecoms-r-us.com>,
<telecoms-r-us.net>, <telephones-r-us.com>,
<telephones-r-us.net>, <windsurfers-r-us.com>,
and <yachts-r-us.com>
registered with Register.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.
Judge Irving H. Perluss (Retired) is the
Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the
National Arbitration Forum (“the Forum”) electronically on January 10, 2002;
the Forum received
a hard copy of the Complaint on January 14, 2002.
On January 11, 2002, Register.com
confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <appointments-r-us.com>, <bars-r-us.com>, <bars-r-us.net>, <bistros-r-us.net>, <burgers-r-us.net>,
<cafes-r-us.com>,
<carphones-r-us.com>, <carphones-r-us.net>,
<cellphones-r-us.com>, <cellphones-r-us.net>,
<cycles-r-us.com>,
<destinations-r-us.com>,
<destinations-r-us.net>, <drinks-r-us.com>,
<golfclubs-r-us.com>, <gyms-r-us.com>,
<inns-r-us.com>,
<internetsales-r-us.com>, <jetskis-r-us.com>,
<lodges-r-us.com>, <netsales-r-us.com>,
<net-sales-r-us.com>,
<recipes-r-us.com>, <restaurants-r-us.net>,
<r-us-domains.com>, <shades-r-us.com>,
<telecoms-r-us.com>, <telecoms-r-us.net>,
<telephones-r-us.com>, <telephones-r-us.net>,
<windsurfers-r-us.com>,
and <yachts-r-us.com> are
registered with Register.com and that the Respondent is the current registrant
of the name. Register.com has verified
that Respondent is bound by the Register.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 January 15, 2002, a Notification of
Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement
Notification”),
setting a deadline of February 4, 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@appointments-r-us.com,
postmaster@bars-r-us.com, postmaster@bars-r-us.net, postmaster@bistros-r-us.net,
postmaster@burgers-r-us.net, postmaster@cafes-r-us.com, postmaster@carphones-r-us.com, postmaster@carphones-r-us.net,
postmaster@cellphones-r-us.com, postmaster@cellphones-r-us.net, postmaster@cycles-r-us.com,
postmaster@destinations-r-us.com, postmaster@destinations-r-us.net, postmaster@drinks-r-us.com,
postmaster@golfclubs-r-us.com, postmaster@gyms-r-us.com,
postmaster@inns-r-us.com,
postmaster@internetsales-r-us.com, postmaster@jetskis-r-us.com, postmaster@lodges-r-us.com,
postmaster@netsales-r-us.com,
postmaster@net-sales-r-us.com, postmaster@recipes-r-us.com,
postmaster@restaurants-r-us.net, postmaster@r-us-domains.com, postmaster@shades-r-us.com,
postmaster@telecoms-r-us.com, postmaster@telecoms-r-us.net, postmaster@telephones-r-us.com,
postmaster@telephones-r-us.net, postmaster@windsurfers-r-us.com,
and postmaster@yachts-r-us.com
by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and
determined to be complete on February 1, 2002.
Plaintiff’s Additional Submission was received February 6, 2002.
On February 12, 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
The Complainant requests that the domain
names be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
1. The
disputed “R US” domain names are confusingly similar to trademarks and service
marks in which Complainant has rights.
ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(1); ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(i).
2. Respondents
have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed “R US” domain
names. ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(2); ICANN
Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
3. The
disputed “R US” domain names have been registered and used in bad faith. ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(3); ICANN Policy
¶4(a)(iii).
B. Respondent
1. The
disputed domain names are not confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. Toys “R” Us has been utilized by Complainant
for many years, and more recently it has utilized Babies “R” Us. These are the only domain names which could
cause confusion, and Respondents have held the domain name Babies “R” Us for
more than
two years without challenge.
Moreover, there are many businesses that use the “r-us” suffix.
2. Respondents
have rights and a legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. This is because they have plans for a
cookery outlet utilizing some of the disputed names for
<cookeryclub.com>. The products
and services to be offered are not identical or similar to any currently being
offered by Complainant.
3. The
disputed domain names have not been registered or are being used in bad
faith. Respondents did not register the
names for the purpose of selling them.
Respondents were registering domain names in the area of cooking for its
cookery club and related areas, e.g.,
bars, drinks, restaurants, recipes, etc.
C. Additional Submissions by Complainant
1. The
Response is defective procedurally because Respondents failed to conclude with
a certifying statement and signature, as required
by ICANN Rule 5(b)(vii), and
their Response exceeds the page limit requirement imposed by the Forum. Supp.
Rule 2(a); ICANN Rule
5(b)(i).
2. The
use of a forward “R” in the disputed domain names is irrelevant in the
determination of confusing similarity to Complainant’s
marks.
3, Complainant
has been vigilant in protecting its marks, and it has not singled out and
“victimized” Respondents because it has not
taken action against other
infringers.
4. Respondents’
purported business plan is a smoke screen to hide their real intent to profit
from Complainant’s famous marks. They
have not demonstrated that they have made preparations to use all of the
disputed domain names.
5. Complainant did offer Respondents
reasonable compensation.
D.
Additional Submission by
Respondent
1. Respondents
submitted a Supplemental Response which cannot be considered because it was not
accompanied by the required fee. The
Supplemental Response consisted of an extensive listing of domain names wherein
the “R-US” was used. As will be
discussed, infra, in any event, the
listing is neither probative nor relevant.
FINDINGS
1. The
Panel finds that Complainant is the owner of a famous and well-known family of
“R US” marks, including “R” US, TOYS “R” US, BABIES
“R” US, KIDS “R” US, “R” US
COLLECTION, RACERS “R” US, SPORTS “R” US, PARTIES “R” US, MOVIES “R” US, BOOKS
“R” US, MATHEMATICS “R”
US, LIGHTS “R” US, SWEETS “R” US, SNACKS “R” US,
COMPUTERS “R” US, and other “R US” marks.
Complainant licenses these marks to Toysrus.com, Toys “R” Us, Toys “R”
Us (Ltd.,) and other related companies.
2. The
Panel finds that Toys “R” Us is a Delaware corporation having a place of
business in Paramus, New Jersey, USA; Toysrus.com is
a Delaware Limited
Liability Company having a place of business in Fort Lee, New Jersey, USA; and
Toys “R” Us (Ltd.) is a United
Kingdom company having a place of business in
Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK.
3. The
Panel finds that Complainant, through its predecessors-in-interest, began using
a family of “R US” marks in connection with retail
sale of toys, sporting
goods, and other items in at least as early as 1960. Complainant’s use of the family of “R US” marks has expanded over
time to including promoting and providing entertainment services
and events,
real estate leasing, insurance services, and the promotion and sale of toys,
games, novelties, party goods, costumes,
furniture, books, bicycles, clothing,
video tapes, video games, computers, clocks, electronic devices, cosmetics,
candy, sundries
and numerous other products and services throughout the United
States of America, the United Kingdom, and internationally.
4. The
Panel finds that Complainant is the owner of the following valid and subsisting
“R US” United States Trademark and Service Mark
Registrations: No. 2,282,394 for “R US”; and No. 2,270,574
for “R” US COLLECTION.
5. The
Panel finds that Complainant is the owner of over fifty (50) valid and
subsisting United States Trademark and Service Mark Registrations
for other “R
US” marks such as TOYS “R” US, GRAND PARENTS “R” US, BIKES “R” US, DOLLS “R”
US, GAMES “R” US, PORTRAITS “R” US, SHOES
“R” US, STICKERS “R” US, and others.
6. The
Panel finds that Complainant is the owner of the following valid and subsisting
“R US” United Kingdom Trademark and Service Mark
Registrations: No. 1,212,567 “R US”; No. 1,177,870 for “R
US”; and No, 2,197,320 for “R US,” and is the owner of several valid and
subsisting United
Kingdom Trademark and Service Mark Registrations for marks
that incorporate “R US,” such as KIDS “R” US, PARTIES “R” US, SWEETS “R”
US,
SNACKS “R” US, MUMS “R” US, BABIES “R”
US DIRECT, TOYS “R” US, BIKES “R” US, and others.
7. The
Panel finds that Complainant and its affiliated companies also have registered
and used the Internet domain names <toysrus.com>,
<babiesrus.com>,
<toysrus.co.uk>, and <babiesrus.co.uk>.
8. The
Panel finds that the wide variety of products and services promoted, sold, or
offered for sale under the family of “R US” marks
have been commercially
promoted, sold, and rendered throughout the United States, the United Kingdom,
and internationally with skill
and care.
Hundreds of millions of dollars each year have been expended to maintain
the wholesome and family-oriented high quality of the products
and services
through the careful selection and careful methods used in the commercial
promotion and sale of products and services
under the family of “R US”
marks. As a result, the sales of goods
and services under the family of “R US” marks have grown tremendously. These marks have acquired substantial
goodwill in connection with a wholesome family image.
9. The
Panel finds that Complainant’s affiliated companies have expended, and continue
to expend, hundreds of millions of dollars annually
to advertise, publicize,
and promote products and services under the family of “R US” marks throughout
the United States, the United
Kingdom, and/or internationally. The family of “R US” marks has been
regularly and extensively advertised on radio and television, on signs, in
publications, direct
mail promotions, and newspaper having a national and
international circulation, and in inserts to newspapers distributed across the
United States, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere.
10. The
Panel finds that as of February 2001, Geoffrey’s related companies had more
than 700 TOYS “R” US, 190 KIDS “R” US, and 140 BABIES
“R” US stores spread
across the United States of America and
more than 490 TOYS “R” US stores outside the United States, including 63 TOYS
“R” US stores in the United Kingdom.
One of these is located in Norwich, the location of Respondents. TOYS “R” US stores have been operating in
the United States since at least as early as 1960, and in the United Kingdom at
least as
early as 1985.
11. The
Panel finds that by reason of extensive advertising, promotion, and sale of
products and services under the family of “R US” marks,
these marks have
acquired distinctiveness and substantial secondary meaning.
12. The
Panel finds that Respondents have registered 74 domain names, many of which
incorporate Complainant’s “R US” mark.
The Complaint herein has been filed with respect to 32 in the generic
top level domains.
13. The
Panel finds that Respondents did have a business plan that was based on a
cookery club, but he further finds that their registration
of 74 domain names
exceeds the scope of their business plan.
Most of the names registered have no relation to cooking and, in any
event, their business plan could have been carried out without
the use of the
disputed “R US” domain names.
14. The
Panel finds that Respondents registered the domain name
<babies-r-us.co.uk> after Complainant began using the mark BABIES
“R” US
and after Complainant had registered <babies-r-us.com>.
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
The
disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous and
distinctive registered marks, which have acquired a
secondary meaning. The addition of a generic word to
Complainant’s mark, the deletion of quotes around the “R,” and the addition of
a hyphen do not dispel
the confusing similarity between the mark and the domain
names.[1]
Respondents’
basic contention that Complainant does not hold the exclusive rights in the “R
US” mark because other businesses have
been trading under the “R US” suffix for
“some time” now, is without merit, and it has been specifically so held in
judicial proceedings.[2]
One
cannot complain that he was arrested for going through a red light, because
others, also in violation of the law, were not caught.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
It
first is to be noted that Complainant’s “R US” marks consist primarily of the
coined term “R US” alone or with a descriptive noun,
such as “bikes,”
“computers,” “dolls,” “parties,” “racers,” “shoes,” or “sweets.” The term “R US” was coined by Complainant’s
predecessor over 40 years ago and is registered as a mark by Complainant and is
exclusively
associated with Complainant and its affiliated companies.
The
determination of “exclusive association” was specifically so found in Geoffrey
Inc. v. Stratton, 16 USPQ2d 1691, 1694 (D.C. Cal. 1990), aff’d, [1991] USCA9 1744; 951 F.2d 359 (9th Cir.
1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 851
(1992) (stating that the “R US” designation was coined by, and exclusively
associated with plaintiff).
Respondents,
in the Panel’s opinion, have not provided a sufficient basis that would
legitimize their claim to the disputed domain
names. Their purported business plan is so vague and speculative to the
extent that it cannot be concluded that there was compliance with
Policy
¶4c(i). In any event, it cannot use
names that are “exclusively associated” with Complainant.
Respondent
is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. (Policy ¶4c(ii).)[3]
Moreover,
the Panel has concluded that the use of the disputed domain names by
Respondents clearly would dilute Complainant’s marks,
i.e., action described by the courts as “the gradual ‘whittling
away’ of a trademark’s value.”[4]
Accordingly, in the view of this Panel, Respondents cannot comply with the
requirement of Policy ¶4c(iii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Section
4b of the Policy sets forth certain circumstances, without limitation, that
shall be evidence of registration and use of a
domain name in bad faith. Subparagraph (iv) of Section 4b provides:
by using the domain name, you have
intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your
website or other
online 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.
The words “source, sponsorship,
affiliation, or endorsement” are particularly apt here. Inevitably, the Panel believes that
consumers would conclude that the domain name in issue was endorsed and
sponsored by Complainant.
In
addition to the demonstration of bad faith by the application of subparagraph
(iv) of Section 4b of the Policy, there is a legal
presumption of bad faith,
when Respondents reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks,
actually or constructively. How could
it have not been?
Indeed,
it has been found, supra, that
Respondents registered the domain name <babies-r-us.co.uk> after
Complainant began using the mark BABIES “R” US, and
after Complainant had
registered the domain name <babies-r-us.com>.
In
Interstellar
Starship Services, Ltd. v. Epix, Inc. (CA 9th 1999) [1999] USCA9 357; 184 F.3d
1107, 1111, it was said:
However, ISS became aware of the ‘EPIX’
trademark when it applied for its own registration of ‘EPIX’. Adopting a designation with the knowledge of
its trademark status permits a presumption of intent to deceive. See, Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1059 (Official
Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, [1993] USCA9 3170; 6 F.3d 1385 (9th Cir.
1993).) In turn, intent to deceive is
strong evidence of a likelihood of confusion.
Sleekcraft, 550 F.2d at 354.
Thus,
the domain name in issue was registered in bad faith.
The
Panel believes that it is not necessary to its Decision to resolve any
conflicts relating to whether there was or was not an offer
to sell the
disputed domain names and the price.
The
Panel recognizes that “use” in bad faith also is required in addition to bad
faith “registration.”
The
Panel heretofore has determined that Respondents have no rights or legitimate
interest in the disputed domain names, and that
they have registered the names
in bad faith. It makes no sense
whatsoever to wait until Respondents actually “use” the names, when inevitably,
when there is such use, it will
create the confusion described in the policy.
Under
the circumstances, a preliminary, mandatory injunction was granted by a federal
court requiring the transfer of a domain name
even though a website had not yet
been opened. Green Products Co. v.
Independence By-Products Co. (N.D. Iowa 1997) 992 F.Supp. 1070. The threatened harm is “use.” See, Phat Fashions v. Kruger, FA 96193
(Nat. Arb. Forum, Dec. 29, 2000); Bloomberg LP v. Peter Schorsch, FA
96576 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Mar. 19, 2001); Hungry Minds, Inc. v. Mall for Dummies,
FA 96635 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 4, 2001).
In
any event, there is “use” because Respondents have “passively held” the
disputed domain name since its registration.
See, Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com,
D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing
domain name without active use can constitute use in
bad faith); DCI
S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000)
(concluding that the Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies
the requirement of
¶4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also, 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”).
The
Panel finds and determines, accordingly, that Respondents registered and used
the disputed domain names in issue in bad faith,
and the issue is “ripe” for
decision.
By
virtue of the Panel’s substantive decision herein, it is not necessary to
consider the alleged procedural defects in the Response
DECISION
Based
on the above findings and conclusions, and pursuant to Rule 4(i), it is decided
that the disputed domain names registered by
Respondents, shall be, and the
same are, transferred to Complainant.
JUDGE IRVING H. PERLUSS
(Retired), Panelist
Dated: March 1, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/326.html