Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Hand and Associates Marketing
Communications v. Scott Mindemann a/k/a Digital Nexus, Inc.
Claim Number: FA0202000105192
PARTIES
The
Complainant is Hand and Associates
Marketing Communications, Dallas, TX (“Complainant”). The Respondent is Scott Mindemann Digital Nexus, Inc., Richardson, TX (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <spikefest.com>,
registered with Verisign - Network
Solutions, Inc.
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.
Edmund
P. Karem is the Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (“the Forum”)
electronically on February 26, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on February 26, 2002.
On
February 27, 2002, Verisign - Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to
the Forum that the domain name <spikefest.com>
is registered with Verisign - Network Solutions, Inc. and that the Respondent
is the current registrant of the name. Verisign
- Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Verisign
- Network Solutions, 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
March 4, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of March 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@spikefest.com by e-mail.
A
timely response was received and determined to be complete on March 25, 2002.
On April 5, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to
have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Edmund P. Karem 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 Hand and Associates contends that it has trademark rights in the
name Spikefest by virtue of registration Number 1824689
filed June 17,
1993. It is Hand’s further contention
that Mindemann/Digital Nexus, Inc., deceptively acquired the spikefest.com
domain name while acting
as a web site designer and host agent for Hand. It is contended that this deception occurred
as a result of Mindemann placing himself as administrative and billing contact
on an
invoice from Network Solutions.
Hand denies ever agreeing to such a designation and acknowledges that it
does not know how Mindemann managed to accomplish this switch
with Network
Solutions and states that it was not even aware until last year that Mindemann
was listed as the registrant of the spikefest.com
name because several freelance
web designers have worked on the spikefest site.
Hand
and Associates attempted to resolve this matter, making repeated requests that
Mindemann voluntarily relinquish the domain name
however no response to these
requests was ever forthcoming. Hand asserts
that the holding of the domain name by Mindemann interferes with Hand’s
trademark and its ability to conduct operations
and commerce for the spikefest
volleyball event, the purpose of which the trademark was acquired.
The
motivation for this, contends Hand, is to force Hand to use Mindemann’s hosting
service which in turn allows Mindemann to place
a hot link on his own
volleyball site titled www.VBallNet.com.
B.
Respondent
Mindemann
contends his company Digital Nexus created and registered spikefest on May 25,
1998 for use independent of Hand and independent
of any organization conducting
volleyball tournaments in Texas or anywhere.
When registering the domain name Mindemann contends they used
appropriate contacts for Administrative, Technical and Billing with
the
registry and those contacts have not changed since the creation of the domain
name. The annual registrant billing
invoices and payments have been processed by Nexus.
The
domain name is used by Respondent for multiple nonprofit student film projects
in a tribute to legendary film producer, Spike
Lee, at various festivals
nationally and internationally. Thus
Mindemann/Nexus contends it is making a legitimate noncommercial and fair use
of the domain name with multiple nonprofit student
film projects and other
activities unrelated to any organization of or conducting volleyball
tournaments.
Respondent
denies that Nexus is a web site designer or a host agent and did not use such
status to manipulate a domain name already
owned by Hand. Nexus alleges that Hand has utilized a
single primary web designer since 2000, not several freelance designers and
with the assistance
of this web designer Hand initiated two hijacking attempts
of the spikefest.com domain name from Nexus.
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.
The Panel finds that Respondent’s
spikefest.com domain name is identical to Complainant’s spikefest mark because it incorporates the entirety of
Complainant’s mark and merely adds the generic top level domain name
“.com”. The addition of a top level
domain name such as “.com” or “.net” is not relevant when assessing whether a
domain name is identical
or confusingly similar and therefore does not create a
distinct mark. See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493
(WIPO July 7, 2000) See also Entrepreneur
Media, Inc. v. Smith, [2002] USCA9 115; 279 F.3d 1135, 1146 (9th Cir. Feb. 11,
2002) Internet users searching for a
company’s website assume as a rule of thumb that the domain name of a
particular company will be the
company name (or trademark) followed by
“.com”.
Rights
or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent does have rights or
legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Respondent used the name in relation to various Spike Lee film
festivals in California and throughout the country. Complainant initially rented the domain name on an annual basis
for use with its annual volleyball tournament.
The film festivals were the primary purpose and the reason for the
registering of the domain name and are nonprofit in nature. The Panel finds that Respondent is not
diverting Complainant’s customers for a commercial gain. Respondent is not a web design company nor a
hosting service. It is not an employee
of Complainant nor has it ever been.
Complainant has merely rented the disputed domain name from Respondent
annually in order to display promotional materials for its
volleyball
tournament. These findings are born out
by the email correspondence between the parties (Respondent’s exhibits 1
through 18).
Respondent did not register the disputed
domain name in bad faith because it was registered and is used in connection
with film festivals. Complainant is
unable to present evidence to support its contention that Mindemann
accomplished a switch in the designation with Network
Solutions.
Respondent does not operate the domain
name for commercial gain nor is Complainant a competitor. Therefore Respondent registered the disputed
domain name in good faith. See Societe des Produits Nestle S.A. v. Pro
Fiducia Treuhand AG, D2001-0916 (WIPO October 12, 2001). That case held that where Respondent had not
attempted to sell a domain name for profit, did not engage in a pattern of
conduct depriving
others of the ability to obtain domain names corresponding to
their trademarks, is not a competitor of Complainant nor seeking to
disrupt
Complainant’s business and is not using the domain name to divert Internet
users for commercial gain lack of bona fide use
on its own is insufficient to
establish bad faith.
DECISION
It is the decision of the Panel that the
Complaint be denied and that the disputed domain name remain registered to the
Respondent
Digital Nexus, Inc.
Edmund
P. Karem, Panelist
Date: April 17, 2002
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/568.html