WorldLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions >> 2002 >> [2002] GENDND 346

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Next Printing and Design, Inc. dba212Postcards v. Craig Singer aka GoCARD aka Postcard.com, Inc. [2002] GENDND 346 (6 March 2002)


National Arbitration Forum

DECISION

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.

<212postcards.com> is identical to complainant’s 212 POSTCARDS mark because it incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety.  See The Fed’n of Gay Games, Inc. v. Hodgson & Scanlon, D2000-0432 (WIPO June 28, 2000) (finding that the domain name <gaygames.com> is identical to Complainant's registered trademark GAY GAMES).  Moreover, spaces are not allowed in domain names and top-level domain names like “.com” are required, therefore, both are irrelevant when determining whether they are identical to marks.  See Hannover Ruckversicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft v. Hyungki Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (finding <hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as spaces are impermissible in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as ‘.com’ or ‘.net’ is required in domain names”); see also Blue Sky Software Corp. v. Digital Sierra Inc., D2000-0165 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000) (holding that the domain name ROBOHELP.COM is identical to complainant’s registered ROBOHELP trademark, and that the "addition of .com is not a distinguishing difference").

<212postcard.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it merely omits the “s” at the end of Complainant’s mark.  The addition or deletion of one letter does not distinguish a domain name from a mark, but rather, makes the two confusingly similar.  See Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that misspelling words and adding letters on to words do not create a distinct mark but nevertheless render the domain name confusingly similar with the Complainant’s marks).  Furthermore, the fact that Respondent and Complainant are both in the same business of selling postcards adds to the confusing similarity of Respondent’s website and Complainant’s mark.  See Slep-Tone Entm't Corp. v. Sounds Choice Disc Jockeys, Inc., FA 93636 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (stating that “likelihood of confusion is further increased by the fact that the Respondent and [Complainant] operate within the same industry”). 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Because Respondent has not submitted a Response, it can be presumed that it has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.  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).

Respondent’s use of the identical and confusingly similar domain names to lure Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing websites indicates that it is not making a bona fide offering of goods pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See 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); see also North Coast Med., Inc. v. Allegro Med., FA 95541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 2, 2000) (finding no bona fide use where Respondent used the domain name to divert Internet users to its competing website); see also 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).

There is no evidence, and Respondent has not come forward to provide any, that it is commonly known by the disputed domain names or the “212postcards” mark.  See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark or never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent’s history of registering infringing domain names in order to capitalize on the goodwill of its competitor’s marks is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).  See YAHOO! Inc. v. Syrynx, Inc. & Hamilton, D2000-1675 (WIPO Jan. 30, 2001) (finding a bad faith pattern pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) in Respondent's registration of two domain names incorporating Complainant's YAHOO! mark).

Registration of the infringing domain names by Respondent, a competitor of Complainant, is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See Lubbock Radio Paging v. Venture Tele-Messaging, FA 96102 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 23, 2000) (concluding that domain names were registered and used in bad faith where Respondent and Complainant were in the same line of business in the same market area); see also Southern Exposure v. Southern Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with Complainant’s business).

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