Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Next Printing and Design, Inc. dba
212Postcards v. Craig Singer aka GoCARD aka Postcard.com, Inc.
Claim Number: FA0201000103985
PARTIES
Complainant
is Next Printing and Design, Inc. dba
212Postcards, New York, NY (“Complainant”) represented by Stephen M. Harnik, of Harnik & Finkelstein. Respondent is Craig Singer, Sunrise, FL (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <212postcard.com>, and <212postcards.com> registered with Tucows, Inc.
PANEL
The
undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially
and to the best of his or her knowledge, has no known
conflict in serving as
Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra
Franklin as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on January 22, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on January 22, 2002.
On
January 29, 2002, Tucows, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
names <212postcard.com>, and <212postcards.com> are registered with Tucows, Inc. and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 31, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”),
setting a deadline
of February 20, 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@212postcard.com and
postmaster@212postcards.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
February 25, 2002 pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra
Franklin 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
Respondent’s <212postcards.com> and <212postcard.com> domain names
are identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s
212 POSTCARDS mark.
Respondent
does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Respondent
registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
No
Response was submitted.
FINDINGS
Complainant has been doing business under
the 212POSTCARDS name since December 1999, and uses the convenient telephone
number 212-POSTCAR(DS),
which has become synonymous with its business.
Respondent registered the disputed domain
names with Tucows, Inc. on November 21, 2000.
Respondent is a direct competitor of Complainant and was aware of
Complainant’s business at the time of registration. Moreover, Respondent has a history of registering domain names
that are confusingly similar to the marks of competing postcard businesses.
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 has common law rights in
the 212 POSTCARDS mark due to its extensive use of the mark and the subsequent
secondary meaning
that it has developed amongst the public.
Accordingly,
the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has
been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Accordingly,
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
should be hereby
granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <212postcards.com> and <212postcard.com> domain
names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra Franklin, Panelist
Dated: March 6, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/346.html