Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
DECISION
Tweetsie Railroad, Inc. v. Amer-Con
Industries
Claim Number: FA0201000104187
PARTIES
The
Complainant is Tweetsie Railroad, Inc.,
Blowing Rock, NC (“Complainant”) represented by Michael Tobin, of Kennedy,
Covington, Lobdell and Hickman LLP.
The Respondent is Amer-Con
Industries, Montville, NJ (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <tweetsierailroad.com>,
registered with eNom.
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.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National
Arbitration Forum (“the Forum”) electronically on January 30, 2002; the Forum
received
a hard copy of the Complaint on January 31, 2002.
On January 31, 2002, eNom confirmed by
e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <tweetsierailroad.com>
is registered with eNom and that the Respondent is the current registrant of
the name. eNom has verified that
Respondent is bound by the eNom 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 February 4, 2002, a Notification of
Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement
Notification”),
setting a deadline of February 25, 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@tweetsierailroad.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and
determined to be complete on February 21, 2002.
Additional submissions were received
timely on February 22, 2002 and February 24, 2002.
On March 4, 2002, pursuant to
Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the
Forum appointed Honorable
Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
RELIEF
SOUGHT
The Complainant requests that the domain
name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
PARTIES’
CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the domain
name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s service
mark; that the
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed
domain name; and that the domain name at issue was registered and
is being used
in bad faith.
B. Respondent
The Respondent contends that he
registered the domain name at issue in good faith and intended to use it for
his own website.
FINDINGS
The Complainant operates a theme park and
tourist destination, which is very well known, especially in the Southeastern
United States. The Complainant opened
this attraction to the public in 1957, and its service mark has been in
continuous use in commerce since then.
The Complainant holds a trademark registration for use of the TWEETSIE
RAILROAD mark in association with amusement park services,
and this mark is now
uncontestable under United States law.
The Respondent offers no details on what
type of commerce it is engaged in. The
Respondent states that it purchased the domain name at issue to create a
website that would appeal to younger children, and that
the website would
involve the use of a train. On June 17,
1999, the Respondent send a communication to the Complainant stating that he
had been a patron of the park and had purchased
the domain name at issue for
an investment purpose. He then offered to sell the domain name to
the Complainant for the sum of $1,000.00.
Further, the Respondent asserts that he
is not subject to the UDRP. The UDRP
was made a part of the Respondent’s registration agreement with its original
Registrar, and when the Respondent renewed the
registration with a new
Registrar in January 2002, a new registration agreement incorporating the UDRP
was executed by the Respondent.
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 domain name at issue is identical to
Complainant's service mark because as it
incorporates the Complainant's mark in its entirety, merely adding the
top-level domain name ".com".
The addition of the top-level domain name does not create a distinctive
mark. 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 Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429
(WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as
“.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain
name for the purpose of determining
whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
It does not appear that Respondent is
using the domain name at issue for a bona
fide offering of goods and services.
Rather, it appears that the Respondent registered the domain name at
issue for the express purpose of selling it back to the Complainant. See
Kinko’s Inc. v. eToll, Inc., FA 94447 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2000)
(finding that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the
domain name where
it appeared that the domain name was registered for ultimate
use by the Complainant); see also
Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v. Sallen, D2000-0715 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000)
(finding that rights or legitimate interests do not exist when one holds a
domain name primarily
for the purpose of marketing it to the owner of a
corresponding trademark).
The Respondent, is not commonly known by
<tweetsierailroad.com> nor has
it ever been known by TWEETSIE RAILROAD.
The Respondent is not an agent or licensee of the Complainant. 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 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).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The evidence presented by both parties
clearly shows that the Respondent visited the Complainant’s theme park, and
registered the
domain name at issue for the express purpose of selling the
domain name back to the Complainant. See Grundfos A/S v. Lokale, D2000-1347
(WIPO Nov. 27, 2000) (failure to use the domain name in any context other than
to offer it for sale to Complainant amounts
to a use of the domain name in bad
faith); see also Dollar Rent A Car Sys.
Inc. v. Jongho, FA 95391 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 11, 2000) (finding that the
Respondent demonstrated bad faith by registering the domain name with
the intent to transfer it to Complainant for
$3,000, an amount in excess of its out of pocket costs); see also Xerox Corp. v.
Imaging Solution, D2001-0313 (WIPO Apr. 25, 2001) (finding that the
Respondent registered the domain name in the hope and expectation of being able
to sell it to the Complainant for a sum of money in excess of its out-of-pocket
expenses and/or in the hope of forcing the establishment
of a business
arrangement beneficial to the Respondent).
DECISION
As all three elements required by the
ICANN Policy Rule 4(a) have been satisfied, it is the decision of this Panel
that the requested
relief be granted.
Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the
domain name <tweetsierailroad.com> be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: March 19, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/416.html