Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
The Prudential Insurance Company of
America v. Prudential Mortgage Loans
Claim Number: FA0201000103880
PARTIES
The
Complainant is The Prudential Insurance
Company of America, Newark, NJ (“Complainant”) represented by Sue J. Nam. The Respondent is
Prudential Mortgage Loans, Monterey Park, CA (“Respondent”) Jaime Garcia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <prudentialloans.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.
Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (“the Forum”)
electronically on January 17, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on January 18, 2002.
On
January 25, 2002, Register.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <prudentialloans.com> is
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 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@prudentialloans.com by
e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 18, 2002.
Complainant’s
Additional Response was submitted on February 20, 2002 and was filed within the
time provided for additional submissions.
On March 6, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to
have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Tyrus R.
Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
The
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to
the Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
Complainant
is The Prudential Insurance Company of America of Newark, New Jersey.
For
over 125 years, Complainant has used its well-known PRUDENTIAL name and mark in
connection with a wide variety of insurance, securities,
investment, financial,
real estate and relocation services throughout the United States and the world.
The
PRUDENTIAL trademark is the subject of trademark registrations in over 50
countries, including the United States.
In the United States, Prudential owns over 100 U.S. trademark
registrations for its PRUDENTIAL and PRUDENTIAL combination marks.
Prudential
and affiliated companies operate numerous web sites around the world, which use
the famous Prudential Marks, including
<prudential.com>; <prudentialsecurities.com>;
<prudential-bache.com>; <prudential.co.kr>;
<prudential.co.jp>;<prudentialbradesco.com.br>. Each year Prudential spends millions of
dollars advertising and promoting its services marketed under the Prudential
Marks on its
web sites and through its other forms of advertising and
marketing.
Prudential
has achieved a tremendous amount of goodwill as a result of its long and
continuous use of its well-known Prudential Marks.
The
Prudential Marks are well established in connection with mortgage related
services. Prudential provides home
equity loans and commercial mortgage loans, provides assistance with mortgage
calculations, and operates
the subsidiaries Prudential Mortgage Capital and
Prudential Funding, LLC.
On
January 19, 2000, Respondent registered the domain name <prudentialloans.com>.
Respondent
is not affiliated with Prudential, and is has not been licensed or otherwise
authorized to use the Prudential Marks.
Respondent’s website offers directly competing loan services, and offers,
among other information, links to mortgage calculators,
loan programs, and
interest rates, the same information offered on Prudential’s sites.
On
December 6, 2001, Prudential sent to Respondent a letter objecting to
Respondent’s use of the Prudential mark in Respondent’s business
name and
domain name. Prudential followed up
with another letter to Respondent.
Neither letter was returned as undeliverable.
The
Domain Name incorporates Prudential’s well-known PRUDENTIAL mark in conjunction
with the term “loans,” a generic term highly associated
with Prudential’s
business and customer bases. As such,
it is confusingly similar to Prudential’s famous family of Prudential Marks.
The
registration by Respondent of a domain name that incorporates the famous Prudential
Marks without a legitimate interest in the
“Prudential” name is evidence of bad
faith.
Given
the fame of the Prudential marks, especially in the business that are the
subject of Respondent’s services and website, a reasonable
Internet user cannot
but be lead to believe that there is a connections between Prudential and
Respondent. Respondent is attempting to
attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a
likelihood of confusion as to
the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement
of Respondent’s website and services.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
is Prudential Mortgage Loans/Jaime A. Garcia of Monterey Park, California.
Respondent
has been operating a business since 1997 under the name Prudential Mortgage
Loans. Respondent has a Monterey Park
Business License in the name Prudential Mortgage Loans since 1999.
“Complainant
has not met the conditions in accordance to the rules for Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Policy in that the domain names
are somewhat similar, there is a limited
amount of variations possible in the English Language in relation to domain
name registrations.” “Clearly in our
website it depicts that Prudential Mortgage Loans an EFG Corporation. Nowhere in our business, nor our website,
does it make any indication or representation that we are part of The
Prudential Insurance
of America.
Nowhere in our website does it state that we are part of the Prudential
Insurance of America. We are not trying
to represent ourselves as The Prudential Insurance of America.”
Respondent
has been operating since 1997.
Respondent has rights under the name Prudential Mortgage Loans.
Complainant
has not provided evidence that Respondent registered the domain name in bad
faith. “Most consumers would probably not
know that Complainant does
residential mortgage loans. Respondent
does residential mortgage loans, only.”
C.
Additional Submissions
Complainant
filed Complainant’s Additional Response that argues that Respondent does not
provide any explanation as to why it chose
a name in 1997 that directly
incorporates Complainant’s famous name and mark. Respondent could not have been unaware of Complainant’s real
estate and mortgage services, given Complainant’s long term and extensive
use
of its marks in these areas. Even a
cursory search on the Internet or of trademark registrations would have
revealed Complainant’s use of the marks in connection
with these services. The only plausible explanation of
Respondent’s use of the name “Prudential Mortgage Loans” and the domain name
<prudentialloans.com> is to intentionally trade upon the fame of
Prudential’s marks. Respondent’s
contentions do not deal with initial interest confusion that is inevitable from
Respondent’s actions. There is no
disclaimer on Respondent’s web page.
FINDINGS
1. Complainant is The Prudential Insurance
Company of America.
2. The nature of Respondent’s business
organization is not made clear in the pleadings. Respondent’s web site carries a notation that Prudential Mortgage
Loans is an “EFG Corporation.”
Respondent does not contend that Prudential Mortgage Loans is, in fact,
a corporation. Respondent refers to
himself in the pleadings as “Jaime Garcia dba Prudential Mortgage Loans.” The inference is made that Prudential
Mortgage Loans is a trade name registered in 1997.
3. Prudential Mortgage Loans/Jaime Garcia
registered the domain name, <prudentialloans.com> on January 19,
2000.
4. Complainant has used its well-known
PRUDENTIAL name and mark in connection with a wide variety of services
including insurance, real
estate and financial offerings.
5. Complainant owns trademark registrations
in the United States and other countries for the mark, PRUDENTIAL, and
PRUDENTIAL in combination
with other words.
Complainant owns over one hundred such marks, including “Prudential
Investments”, “Prudential Real Estate
Investors”, “The Prudential Home Mortgage Company”, “Prudential Home Mortgage
Program”, “Prudential Home Equity”,
and “The Prudential Realty Group” among
other marks incorporating the word Prudential with other words.
6. All of Complainant’s trademark
registrations pre-date Respondent’s registration of the domain name <prudentialloans.com>.
7. Complainant does not own a trademark for
the word combination, prudentialloans.
8. The domain name <prudentialloans.com>
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks.
9. Complainant has rights and legitimate
interests in the term prudentialloans.
10. Respondent has no rights and interests in
the term prudentialloans.
11. Respondent registered the domain name in
bad faith.
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
Complainant has rights in the name
“Prudential” based upon the numerous trademark registrations in the United
States. The domain name <prudentialloans.com>
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates the
entirety of Complainant’s PRUDENTIAL mark and adds the generic
term
“loans.” The addition of a generic term
to a famous mark is not enough to create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a
claim of confusing
similarity. see
Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026
(WIPO Mar. 23, 2001); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Casino Yahoo, Inc., D2000-0660
(WIPO Aug. 24, 2000), which found that the domain name <casinoyahoo.com>
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
mark, Yahoo. see also L.L. Bean,
Inc. v. ShopStarNetwork, FA 95404 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2000), holding
that the addition of the generic word “shop” to a famous mark does not lessen
confusing
similarity.
Complainant prevails on this issue.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant shows that it has not
authorized or licensed Respondent to use the PRUDENTIAL mark. No contention is made by either party that
Respondent is the owner of any trade or service mark that is identical to the
domain name. Complainant contends that
it has exclusive right to use the mark PRUDENTIAL. As result of Complainant’s showing, and Respondent’s apparent
lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, the burden
must
shift to Respondent to demonstrate rights and legitimate interests in the
domain name. see Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228
(WIPO Nov. 28, 2000).
Respondent may demonstrate his rights and
legitimate interests by any of the methods set out in Paragraph 4(c) of the
Policy. Respondent’s sole contention is
that he has used the name Prudential Mortgage Loans in the operation of his
business since the year
1997 and has owned a business license in that name
since 1999. The question to be decided
is whether Respondent’s use of the name Prudential Mortgage Loans satisfies the
requirement of Paragraph
4(c)(ii), which states that when a respondent can show
that he has been commonly known by the domain name, even if he has acquired
no
trademark or service mark rights, he has shown legitimate rights or
interests. Respondent admits in the
pleadings that he was well aware of the fame of the PRUDENTIAL mark at the time
that he began to use Prudential
Mortgage Loans. His explanation is that though
the domain name and Complainant’s mark are “somewhat similar” he believes that
he
could use Prudential Mortgage Loans because “Nowhere in our business
propaganda or website, does it make any indication or representation
that we
are part of The Prudential Insurance of America…we clearly are not trying to
represent ourselves as The Prudential Insurance
of America.” That representation is not sufficient to
make a case under Paragraph 4(c)(ii).
When Complainant became aware that Respondent was using the name
Prudential Mortgage Loans, it sent a cease and desist letter requiring
Respondent to stop using Prudential Mortgage Loans on the ground that the use
thereof was a violation of Complainant’s trademark
rights. A respondent cannot be known by the famous trademark
of another for the purposes set out in Paragraph 4(c)(ii). see Nike, Inc. v.
B. B. de Boer, D2000-1397 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000), which found 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 name containing the distinct and
famous NIKE trademark. The application
of that reasoning to this case shows that a party, other than Complainant,
would have to make an extraordinary presentation
to prove that he could be
legitimately commonly known as PRUDENTIAL either alone or in combination with
the word “loans” for the
purposes set out in Paragraph 4(c)(ii). see The
Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Mr. Ng Hoong Yew, FA 101535
(Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 27, 2001), holding that consumers around the world
associate the Complainant’s marks with Prudential
and its affiliated companies.
see The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Stonybrook Investments,
Ltd., FA 100182 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 15, 2001), holding that the public
has come to associate Prudential exclusively with Complainant. Respondent made no such showing. It must be noted that this Panel does not
and cannot decide whether Respondent can continue doing business under the name
Prudential
Mortgage Loans. That is a
matter to be decided in a court of competent jurisdiction. This Panel decides only that Respondent has
not proved that he has been commonly known by the domain name under the
requirements set
out in Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.
Respondent cannot satisfy the requirement
of Paragraph 4(c)(i) since the use of a domain name confusingly similar to
Complainant’s
mark and the offering of services similar to Complainant’s
services is not a bona fide offering of services. see Vapor Blast Mfg. Co.
v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001); Ticketmaster
Corp. v. DiscoverNet, Inc., D2001-0252 (WIPO Apr. 9, 2001).
No contention is made that Respondent’s
site is noncommercial. Paragraph
4(c)(iii) is inapplicable to this case.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the domain name <prudentialloans.com>.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant contends that Respondent by
using the domain name <prudentialloans.com> is intentionally
attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s web
site by creating a likelihood of
confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to
the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or of a
product
or service on the web site. If
that is shown, such circumstances present evidence of registration and use in
bad faith. see Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Respondent admits actual notice of
Complainant’s trademark at the time he registered the domain name. Respondent
concedes that: “The
Prudential Insurance Company has been around for decades as
an insurance company. The Prudential
Insurance Company of America is well known in the Insurance Industry.” The famous nature of Complainant’s mark and
Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark raises the inference that
Respondent
acted in bad faith in registering <prudentialloans.com>. Evidence of bad faith includes actual or
constructive knowledge of commonly known marks at the time of
registration. see Samsonite Corp. v.
Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000); Victoria’s Secret
et al v. Hardin, FA 96694 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 31, 2001). Respondent offers no explanation for
choosing to use Complainant’s mark in the domain name. There is no evidence from which to infer
that the domain name was selected in any manner other than in bad faith since
it entirely
incorporates the Complainant’s famous mark. see Dr. Karl
Albrecht v. Eric Natale, FA 95465 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2000).
There can be no doubt that there will be
a likelihood of initial interest confusion by Internet users as to the source,
sponsorship,
affiliation or endorsement of the web site. An Internet user encountering the web site
at <prudentialloans.com> is likely to associate the site with
Complainant. Initial interest confusion
is a factor to consider on the issue of bad faith. see Foyles Ltd v. Foyle’s
Books Ltd, D2000-1544 (WIPO Jan. 13, 2001). This is particularly important when both Complainant and
Respondent provide similar services, such as providing home equity loans,
mortgage calculators, calculators on affordability, and information about
relocation services and insurance. A
reasonable Internet user cannot help but to be led to believe that there is a
connection between Complainant and Respondent. see Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v.
Inja Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000).
The fact that the Internet user ultimately discovers that a site is not
that of Complainant, or that Respondent disclaims any association
with
Complainant does not cure the fault. See Estee Lauder Inc. v.
esteelauder.com and Jeff Hanna, D2000-0869 (WIPO Sept. 25, 2000).
It must be inferred, under the facts and
circumstances of this case, that Respondent was fully aware of this likelihood
of confusion
at the time the domain name <prudentialloans.com> was
registered. That knowledge supplies the
intentional element necessary to establish violation of Paragraph 4(b)(iv).
Sufficient proof has been advanced by Complainant, which
joined with the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the facts and
circumstances
of this case, lead to the conclusion that the domain name in
question was registered and used in bad faith.
DECISION
It is the finding of this
Panel that the domain name, <prudentialloans.com>, now registered
to Respondent, Prudential Mortgage Loans/Jaime Garcia, be transferred to
Complainant, The Prudential Insurance Company of America.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: March 20, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/427.html