Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Stevenson Industries, Inc. v. CPAP-PRO
Online
Claim Number: FA0203000105778
PARTIES
Complainant
is Stevenson Industries, Inc.,
Pacific Palisades, CA (“Complainant”) represented by Joseph Goldstein, of Stevenson
Industries, Inc. Respondent is CPAP-PRO Online, Houston, TX
(“Respondent”) John Goodman.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <cpap-pro.net>,
registered with BulkRegister.com.
PANEL
The
undersigned certify that they have acted independently and impartially and that
to the best of their knowledge they have no known
conflicts in serving as
Panelists in this proceeding. Panelists are M. Kelly Tillery, David E. Sorkin
and Carolyn Marks Johnson.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (“the Forum”)
electronically on March 11, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on March 12, 2002.
On
March 15, 2002, BulkRegister.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <cpap-pro.net> is
registered with BulkRegister.com and that Respondent is the current registrant
of the name. BulkRegister.com has
verified that Respondent is bound by the BulkRegister.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
March 15, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of April 4,
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@cpap-pro.net by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 3, 2002.
On April 10, 2002, pursuant to Respondent’s request to
have the dispute decided by a three-member
Panel, the Forum appointed M. Kelly
Tillery, David E. Sorkin and Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelists.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant makes the following
allegations:
Complainant
has established rights in the mark contained in its entirety in the confusingly
similar domain name registered by Respondent.
Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interest in the mark and
domain name. Respondent acted in bad
faith.
B. Respondent urged the following in response:
<Cpap-pro.net>
is the domain name of U.S. Expediters, Inc., a Texas corporation, with common
law rights in the mark contained within the domain
name. Respondent has rights
to and legitimate interests in the mark contained within the domain name and that
Respondent did not
act in bad faith.
Respondent additionally urges that Complainant is attempting reverse
cybersquatting with this Complaint.
FINDINGS
Complainant owns the registered mark CPAP PRO. Stevenson Industries, Inc. developed,
patented and obtained FDA approval for a nasal/oral interface for the treatment
of sleep apnea
that is not available from any other source and that was
introduced to the medical, dental and respiratory industry on February 1,
1999.
Complainant has used the mark since February 1,
1999, and has invested in extensive promotion of the product in magazine
articles,
advertisements and professional journals and has shown the product at
tradeshows and conferences.
Complainant
registered the domain name <cpappro.com> on December 10, 1999, and
Complainant filed its trademark application for
CPAP PRO on September 29,
2000. The trademark was not granted
until February 19, 2002. Complainant developed the website at
<cpappro.com>. Respondent
developed the name “cpap-pro” on eBay beginning March 2000.
Complainant
urges that its device gained worldwide trademark recognition and that it is
marketed throughout the world.
Complainant acknowledges that it became aware of the
website with the domain name <cpap-pro.net> on
September 25, 2000 and that it became aware that the domain name site was used
to “sell related products such as CPAP machines,
masks and other products
within the sleep apnea field on E-Bay and at Yahoo auctions sites at discounted
prices.” Thereafter, Complainant urges
that it sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent and reported that Mr.
Goodman “graciously agreed
‘to obtain another name as soon as possible within
an estimated time period of approximately 30-day.’”(sic) Respondent disputes
Complainant’s
version of the parties’ September 2000 communications. In particular, Respondent says all it agreed
to do was to change its web site, not relinquish its domain name, and that that
promise
was based on Complainant’s representation that it already had a
registered trademark, when in fact Complainant had not yet even filed
its
trademark application. Neither party
offered evidence of this communication.
Apparently, rather than abandoning his site,
Respondent increased the activity at the site.
Complainant filed for trademark registration of CRAP
PRO September 29, 2000, and received registration number 2,539,816 on February 19, 2002. Complainant asserts that CPAP-PRO is falsely represented by
Respondent to be Respondent’s registered trademark.
Respondent registered the <cpap-pro.net> domain
name on August 11, 2000. The Administrative Contact is Respondent John Goodman
of Missouri City, Texas.
Respondent also sells sleep related products on-line
by E-bay from March 2000. Respondent would have the Panel hold that CPAP is “an
extremely common word used in the sleep disorder field.” Respondent asserts that he also is the
“owner of other sleep disorder business including diagnostics and homecare
treatment” and that
“Complainant thus was not the first person to think of
using these terms together and it was natural for us to want to use them on
the
internet.” Moreover, Respondent urges
that Complainant’s product represents “less than one tenth of one percent of
the total cpap interface market.”
Respondent urges that Complainant made no contact
with Respondent after September 2000.
Complainant’s proof included the USPTO trademark
registration confirmation, showing as well that Complainant made no application
to
use CPAP alone but only CPAP in conjunction with PRO. The sole proof presented by Respondent was two pages of Ebay feedback.
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 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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to
a trademark or service mark in which Complainant
has rights;
(2)
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.
Complainant
argues that Respondent’s <cpap-pro.net> domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s CPAP PRO mark because it incorporates the entirety of
Complainant’s mark
and merely adds a hyphen between CPAP and PRO. The Panel may find that the addition of the
hyphen does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of
confusing similarity. See Teleplace, Inc. v. De Oliveira, FA 95835
(Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that the domain name
<tele-place.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
TELEPLACE
trademark).
Respondent asserts that it began using CPAP-PRO and
<cpap-pro.net> before Complainant registered the trademark
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Respondent also asserts that it began selling its products on
eBay under the name in March of 2000, and set up the website at <cpap-pro.net> in August
of 2000, and that Complainant did not apply to register its trademark until
September of that year.
Furthermore, Respondent asserts that CPAP is
descriptive of the types of products that both Respondent and Complainant sell
and therefore
CPAP has no distinctive qualities as a trademark. Respondent asserts that the combination of
CPAP and PRO is not inherently distinctive and therefore Complainant does not
have exclusive
rights. See Zero Int'l Holding v. Beyonet Servs., D2000-0161 (WIPO
May 12, 2000) (stating that "[c]ommon words and descriptive terms are
legitimately subject to registration
as domain names on a 'first-come,
first-served' basis"); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. CBNO
and Redican, UDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) “identical,” D2000-0427
(WIPO Aug. 24, 2000) (finding that “genericness, if established, will defeat a
claim of trademark rights, even in a mark
which is the subject of an incontestable
registration”). This is not persuasive
because the Trademark Registration shows that Complainant does have a protected
registered trademark of CPAP
PRO but that the trademark does not attempt to
register CPAP standing alone.
The
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been
satisfied; the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered
mark.
Rights to or Legitimate Interests
Complainant
urges that it has rights to and legitimate interests in the mark contained
within the domain name and that Respondent
has no such rights. The Panel may
find that because Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s mark it will
create Internet user confusion and attract
Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s website. It has been established that the diversion of Complainant’s
customers to Respondent’s domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods
and
services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev,
D2000-1571 (WIPO Jan. 15, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where Respondent diverted Complainant’s customers to
his websites); see also
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). However, here, Respondent
points out that likely Internet users will access
CPAP PRO before they access
CPAP-PRO and any disadvantage will result to Respondent.
The
Panel also may find that Respondent, known as John Goodman, is not commonly
known by <cpap-pro.net> pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), and that
therefore, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name. 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 and
never applied
for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name). However, the argument could be made here
that at the time of Respondent’s registration of the domain name, the
Complainant, Stevenson
Industries, Inc., also was not known by the name CPAP
PRO.
The
Panel further may find that Respondent is attempting to attract Complainant’s
customers to its website by creating a likelihood
of confusion as to source,
sponsorship and affiliation of <cpap-pro.net> for Respondent’s
commercial gain and therefore that Respondent is not making a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the disputed
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See Caterpillar Inc. v. Quin, D2000-0314
(WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that Respondent does not have a legitimate
interest in using the domain names <caterpillarparts.com>
and
<caterpillarspares.com> to suggest a connection or relationship, which
does not exist, with Complainant's mark CATERPILLAR);
see also AltaVista v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO
Oct. 25, 2000) (finding that use of the domain name to direct users to other,
unconnected websites does not constitute
a legitimate interest in the domain
name).
Respondent
asserts, and has shown some evidence, that Respondent has been selling products
in the same area of commerce as Complainant’s
product. Even Complainant urges that Complainant’s
product is “unique” to the market and that no one but Complainant sells that
product. Respondent has used the name
CPAP-PRO on eBay since March of 2000 and set up the disputed domain name in
August 2000, allegedly based
on its eBay success. Respondent asserts that it did this before Complainant registered
its mark and therefore, it did not register the domain name in order
to create
user confusion for its own commercial gain.
Rather, Respondent urges that it registered a domain name that reflected
the mark connected with the products Respondent had been
selling on eBay. Therefore Respondent asserts that it has
used the disputed domain name in order to make a bona fide offering of goods
and services
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).
See Bankinter S.A. v. BI
Fin. Inc., D2000-0460 (WIPO Sept. 5, 2000) (finding that Respondent has
rights and legitimate interests in the domain name where Respondent
is using
the domain name for a legitimate and fair purpose and there is evidence that it
is known by the disputed domain name).
The evidence
offered by Respondent to support his rights or legitimate interests in respect
of the domain name is far from persuasive,
although the Panel is mindful that
Complainant bears the burden of proof.
If the existence of such rights or interest turns on resolution of a
legitimate trademark dispute, then Respondent must prevail, because
such
disputes are beyond the scope of this proceeding.
In light of the
conclusion on the question of bad faith, which is dispositive of the present
matter, the Panel declines to enter a
finding on the question of rights or
legitimate interests.
However, Respondent asserts that it did not register
the disputed domain name in bad faith because Complainant did not have a
trademark
for CPAP-PRO when Respondent registered the domain name, and
therefore that Respondent did not register a confusingly similar domain
name
for commercial gain. See PRIMEDIA Special Interest Publ'n. Inc. v.
Treadway, D2000-0752 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that Respondent did not
register the domain names in bad faith where there is no evidence
that
Respondent intended to sell the domain name or disrupt the Complainant’s
business); see also Mule Lighting,
Inc. v. CPA, FA 95558 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2000) (finding no bad faith
where Respondent has an active website that has been in use for two
years and
where there was no intent to cause confusion with Complainant’s website and
business). In fact, Complainant never
had a registered trademark in the combination of CPAP-PRO and in fact had no
right to use of the CPAP designation
alone.
Complainant’s mark was CPAP PRO.
Respondent further asserts that it registered the
domain name in good faith because it registered <cpap-pro.net> in
relation to a legitimate business interest.
Respondent notes that it was known by the name when it registered the
domain name. Furthermore, Respondent
argues CPAP-PRO is descriptive of the class of products Respondent sells. See DJF Assocs,. Inc. v. AIB Communications, FA 95612 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Nov. 1, 2000) (finding Respondent has shown that it has a legitimate interest
in the domain name because
Respondent selected the name in good faith for its
website, and was offering services under the domain name prior to the
initiation
of dispute); see also Lowestfare.com
LLC v. US Tours & Travel, Inc., AF-0284 (eResolution Sept. 9, 2000)
(finding no bad faith where Respondent was using the descriptive domain name
<thelowestfare.com>
to lead consumers to a source of lowest fares in good
faith).
On the balance of the evidence, it appears to the
Panel that Respondent registered the domain name in order to reflect the name
under
which he was already doing business on eBay, and that he had selected
that name because it was descriptive of his business rather
than because of any
fame Complainant’s mark may have enjoyed at that time. Under the circumstances, the Panel cannot
conclude that the domain name was registered in bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Respondent asserts that Complainant has brought this
Complaint in bad faith because Complainant knew it did not have a trademark for
CPAP PRO before Respondent began
using the disputed domain name. See
Aspen Grove, Inc. v. Aspen Grove, D2001-0798 (WIPO October 5, 2001)
(finding that when Complainant knows it has no rights in the mark but brings a
Complaint despite
this fact, the Complainant has acted in bad faith and
attempted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking which constitutes an abuse of the
administrative
proceeding).
The
Panel is not persuaded that Complainant initiated this proceeding in bad faith.
DECISION
Having
determined that not all of the three required showings has been satisfied, the
relief requested by Complainant must be Denied. Accordingly it is therefore ORDERED
that the domain
name <cpap-pro.net> NOT be transferred and that the Complaint be dismissed.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Writing for the Majority of Johnson and David E. Sorkin
Date: April 24, 2002
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
STEVENSON
INDUSTRIES, INC. V. CPAP-PRO ONLINE
CLAIM NUMBER: FA0203000105778
DISSENT – M.
KELLY TILLERY, ESQUIRE
I must respectfully
dissent.
Respondent does not
deny Complainant's claims regarding "first use" of its mark as early
as March 1, 1999, one year before
the earliest claimed use in commerce of
Respondent. Respondent is curiously
silent on his knowledge of Complainant's use, Complainant's Trademark
Application Filed on September 29, 2000
and Published For Opposition on
November 27, 2001 and/or Complainant's registration of <cpappro.com> on
December 10, 1999. He is also curiously
silent on his knowledge of <cpappro.com> or why he chose
<cpap-pro.net>, rather than the more prominent and valuable .com. Anyone seeking to register a domain name for
a commercial enterprise is going to search the WHO IS database to determine if
there
is anything identical or close to what they seek to register. If (when) Respondent had done so, he
certainly would have seen that <cpappro.com> was registered by
Complainant. I have to assume that he
did and that is why he chose .net.
ICANN Arbitrators, like any fact finders, must use our common sense.
As an experienced
professional in this area of commerce, Respondent had to be aware of
Complainant and Complainant's product.
He does not deny any of the allegations of Complainant regarding the
nature of its product and its position in the sleep apnea community.
Under these
circumstances, I cannot find that Respondent has legitimate interest in or
rights to the CPAP-PRO domain name or that
he has registered or is using the
name in good faith.
Under these
circumstances, Complainant was and is the first to use CPAP-PRO in commerce. I simply cannot believe that Respondent was not aware of same. I conclude that he was aware of same, as my
common sense dictates and thus would find that his uses do not establish
a legitimate interest in or right to the domain name and that his
registration and use are in bad faith.
M. Kelly Tillery,
Esquire
PANELIST
Date: April 25,
2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/606.html