Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
BNOS Menachem Inc. v. YLSL aka grsm yo
Claim Number: FA0203000105773
PARTIES
The
Complainant is BNOS Menachem, Inc.,
Brooklyn, NY (“Complainant”) represented by Gordon E. R. Troy. The
Respondent is YLSL aka grsm yo,
Brooklyn, NY (“Respondent”) represented by Paul
Goodman, of Ellenoff Grossman Schole
& Cyruli, LLP.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <bnosmenachem.org>
and <bnosmenachem.com>,
registered with G.K. Group.
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.
Hon.
Roger P. Kerans as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (“the Forum”)
electronically on March 8, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on March 11, 2002.
On
March 12, 2002, G.K. Group confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
names <bnosmenachem.org> and <bnosmenachem.com> are registered
with G.K. Group and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the
name. G.K. Group has verified that
Respondent is bound by the G.K. Group 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 13, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of April 2,
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@bnosmenachem.org and postmaster@bnosmenachem.com by
e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 16, 2002.
A
further submission from the Complainant was received on April 19, 2002, and
this was in compliance with Rule 7(a) of the National
Arbitration Forum Rules.
On April 26, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to
have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Roger
Kerans as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
The
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to
Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
1. BNOS MENACHEM is Hebrew for “Daughters of Menachem.” It was the name adopted by the Complainant not-for-profit
corporation for its school for young women in Brooklyn, New York, USA. The Complainant says the name was taken to
honor the late Rabbi Menachem.
2. The Corporation was created in 1999 and
the school has operated since September, 2000.
3. The Complainant had registered the name <bnosmenachem.org>
but inadvertently permitted the registration to lapse.
4. The Respondent registered the names in
dispute on February 12, 2002, and at the time of registration was aware of the
previous registration.
5. The website of the Respondent promotes
another school for young women in Brooklyn called Beis Rivka.
6. The Respondent on registration gave as an
address a location in Brooklyn of a Jewish Temple not associated with either
school. Also, the email address seems
to be registered to a person who seems to be located in southern California,
and the telephone number
supplied on registration is listed for yet another
person.
B. Respondent
1. BNOS MENACHEM is a generic name, and the
Complainant in fact calls its school the Bnos Menachem School for Girls.
2. A use offered in tribute to the late
Lubavitcher Rabbi Menachem Scheerson is generic.
3. BNOS MENACHEM is also the name of a
school in Johannesburg, South Africa.
It is commonplace for Jewish organizations to employ the name “BNOS”
(daughters) or “BNAI” (sons) or “BETH” (children).
4. The Respondent does not say what
interests it pursues with its use of the domain name in question, and limits
its comments to an argument
that the Complainant has not proven its case.
5. The Respondent does not identify itself,
but says that it is pure speculation to say that it has no connection with the
Temple located
at the address supplied.
Nor should any inference be drawn from a change in telephone numbers.
C. Additional Submissions for the
Complainant
1. The alleged school in South Africa in
fact does not exist, as evidenced by extracts from the telephone
directory. Moreover, the telephone
shown on the Respondent Web page is for Lubavitch Foundation Orchards, not a
school.
2. Evidence is offered of use by the school
merely of the name BNOS MENACHEM unaccompanied by any reference to “school for
girls”, as,
for example, the name on a school bus.
3. The reference on the Respondent website
to a South African school was uploaded only after this Complaint was filed.
4. After the Complaint was filed, the
Respondent attempted to transfer the domain names. Photographs of the new address are offered to show no
school. Mail addressed to the new
registrant was returned as ”unknown” or “refused”.
The Respondent registered the domain
names in issue on the very day that the previous registration of the
Complainant expired.
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
<bnosmenachem.org> and <bnosmenachem.com> are
confusingly similar to the name BNOS MENACHEM, or indeed the name BNOS MENACHEM
School for Girls.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant satisfies me that it has
a legitimate interest in the name BNOS MENACHEM, as it has been used by it in
connection
with a Brooklyn school operated by it.
The Respondent alleges that this name is
generic. But the Respondent must
provide evidence of alleged genericness.
See Limco, Inc. v. Rarenames,
FA 99693 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 27, 2001) (finding that rather than just
claiming that a term is generic, Respondent should provide
further evidence of
genericism, considering "words such as 'crew', 'playboy', 'quicktime' and
'scholastic' have been granted
trademark registrations that have been protected
in domain dispute cases").
Here, the Respondent relies on the
existence of a school with a similar name in the Republic of South Africa. The Complainant, however, satisfies me that
I should not accept this allegation as proven.
I must proceed on the basis that this school does not exist.
It is correct that it is very possible
that another Jewish organization may choose to honor Rabbi MENACHEM by
describing itself as
“Daughters” of
MENACHEM. But the Respondent
fails to persuade me that to this date any have. In any event this argument is a two-edged sword. If more than one person or corporation
chooses to honor the Rabbi in this way, probably nobody, including this Respondent, is entitled to employ the term BNOS
MENACHEM without some qualifier like “school” or “Brooklyn”.
Furthermore, Respondent claims that BNOS
MENACHEM is at the very most a descriptive mark. See Lowestfare.com LLA v. US Tours & Travel,
Inc., AF-0284 (eResolution Sept. 9, 2000)
(finding that marks classified as descriptive cannot be protected unless
secondary meaning is proven and to establish secondary meaning
the complainant
must show that the public identifies the source of the product rather than the
product itself). But, on the evidence,
I have no difficulty drawing the inference that some members of the public in
Brooklyn associate the name with
the school.
I conclude that the Complainant has a
legitimate interest in the name. The
Respondent does not assert any special rights in the name, being content to
argue that it should not receive any legal protection.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The combined facts of registration by the
Respondent the very day the Complainant permitted its registration to lapse,
the hazy details
about ownership, the absence of any expressed purpose for or
interest in the use of this name by this Respondent, the promotion on
the
Respondent website of another Brooklyn Jewish school for young women, and the
attempt to assert after the Complaint was filed
that there is such a school in
South Africa, together persuade me that the real purpose of the Respondent here
is to harass the Complainant. This is
bad faith within Rule 4(b)(iii).
DECISION
I direct that the names <bnosmenachem.org>
and <bnosmenachem.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Hon Roger P. Kerans Panelist
Dated: May 3, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/667.html