Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Thomas & Betts Corporation v.
Emergency Lite
Claim Number: FA0204000109039
PARTIES
Complainant
is Thomas & Betts Corporation,
Memphis, TN (“Complainant”) represented
by Andrew Barger.
Respondent is Emergency Lite,
Golden Valley, MN (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <emergilite.com>,
registered with Network Solutions.
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.
Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on April 2, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the Complaint
on April 5, 2002.
On
April 8, 2002, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <emergilite.com>
is registered with Network Solutions and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Network
Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions
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
April 10, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of April 30,
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@emergilite.com by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification,
the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
May 13, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon.
Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Having
reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”)
finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility
under Paragraph 2(a) of
the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “to
employ reasonably available
means calculated to achieve actual notice to
Respondent.” Therefore, the Panel may
issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the
ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules,
the Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and
principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any
Response
from Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
1.
Other than omitting a hyphen, the disputed domain name <emergilite.com> is
identical to Complainant’s EMERGI-LITE mark.
2. Respondent is not commonly known by <emergilite.com>. Furthermore, Respondent uses the disputed
domain name to promote competing products.
Therefore, Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in <emergilite.com>.
3. Respondent has regsitered a domain name that is
nearly identical to Complainant’s mark and uses it to promote a competing
product. Respondent has also agreed to
transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant, yet has not followed through
on its promise. Thus, Respondent has
regsitered and used <emergilite.com> in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
No
Response was submitted.
FINDINGS
Complainant
registered the EMERGI-LITE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark
Offices on May 26, 1981, Reg. No. 1,155,476.
Complainant uses the mark in connection with: battery powered emergency
lighting equipment comprising light fixtures or safety signs,
batteries and
circuit means, sold as a unit, in International Class 11.
Respondent
registered the disputed domain name on March 2, 1998. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to promotes goods and
services that compete with Complainant’s business. In a letter sent to Complainant, Respondent agreed to transfer
the disputed domain name to Complainant.
However, despite being sent an NSI transfer agreement numerous times,
Respondent has refused to sign it.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of 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.”
In view
of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this
administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's
undisputed
representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and
draw such inferences it considers appropriate
pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the
Rules.
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; and
(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 established its rights to
the EMERGI-LITE mark through
registration with the USPTO and subsequent continuous use.
Because
omitting a hyphen in the disputed domain name does not create a distinctive mark
capable to over come confusing similarity,
the disputed domain name <emergilite.com>
and Complainant’s EMERGI-LITE mark are confusingly similar. See Nat’l
Cable Satellite Corp. v. Black Sun Surf Co., FA 94738 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 19, 2000) (holding that the domain name
<cspan.net>, which omitted the hyphen from the trademark spelling,
C-SPAN, is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark); see also Ritz-Carlton
Hotel Co. v. Club Car Executive,
D2000-0611 (WIPO Sept. 18, 2000) (finding that removing a hyphen in the domain
names is not sufficient to differentiate the domain
names from the mark); see
also BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co.
KG v. Tweed, D2000-0418 (WIPO June 20, 2000) (finding that the domain name,
<tippex.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark,
TIPP-EX, and
that use of a hyphen does not negate likelihood of confusion).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has
been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has not filed a Response in
this matter. Therefore, the Panel
presumes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in any of the
disputed domain names. See Desotec
N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that
failing to respond allows a presumption that Complainant’s allegations are true
unless
clearly contradicted by the evidence).
Because a Response was not filed, the Panel presumes that all
allegations in the Complaint are true. See
Talk City, Inc.
v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000)
(“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all
allegations of the Complaint”).
According to the evidence presented,
Respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name in connection with a website
that offers competing
services. Such
activity is not considered a use in connection with a bona fide offering of
goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See Chip Merchant,
Inc. v. Blue Star Elec., D2000-0474 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that the
disputed domain names were confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and that
Respondent’s use of the domain names to sell competing goods was illegitimate
and not a bona fide offering of goods); see also Ticketmaster Corp. v. DiscoverNet, Inc., D2001-0252 (WIPO Apr. 9,
2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent generated
commercial gain by intentionally
and misleadingly diverting users away from
Complainant's site to a competing website).
According to the Complaint, Respondent is
known as “Emergency Lite Service Center,” and there is no evidence presented
that Respondent
has been commonly known as <emergilite.com>.
Therefore, Respondent has no legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See
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).
Respondent has used a confusingly similar
domain name to confuse Internet users of sponsorship of a commercial website in
connection
with the disputed domain name.
This behavior by Respondent is not considered a legitimate,
noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Toronto-Dominion
Bank v. Karpachev, 188 F.Supp.2d
110, 114 (D.Mass
2002) (finding that, because the Respondent's sole purpose in selecting the
domain names was to cause confusion with the
Complainant's website and marks,
it's use of the names was not in connection with the offering of goods or
services or any other
fair use);
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).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent has sent a letter to
Complainant agreeing to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant. Although this transfer has not occurred, the
letter allows an inference that Respondent has registered and used the disputed
domain
name in bad faith. See Marcor
Int’l v. Langevin, FA 96317
(Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 12, 2001) (Respondent’s registration and use of the
domain name at issue coupled with its expressed
willingness to transfer the
name amply satisfies the bad faith requirements set forth in ICANN Policy); see
also Global Media Group, Ltd.
v. Kruzicevic, FA 96558 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 7, 2001) (finding
Respondent’s failure to address Complainant’s allegations coupled with its
willingness
to transfer the names is evidence of bad faith registration and
use).
Respondent has registered a confusingly
similar domain name that is connected with a website that offers goods which
compete with
Complainant’s goods. This
activity by Respondent is considered registering the disputed domain name in
bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
See Surface Protection
Indus., Inc. v. Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001) (finding that,
given the competitive relationship between Complainant and Respondent,
Respondent
likely registered the contested domain name with the intent to
disrupt Complainant's business and create user confusion); see also EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Unlimited Latin
Flavors, Inc., FA 94385 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding that the
minor degree of variation from the Complainant's marks suggests that
Respondent, Complainant’s competitor, registered the names primarily for the
purpose of disrupting Complainant's business).
Finally, by using a confusingly similar
domain to promote competing products, Respondent has intentionally attempted to
attract, for
commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a
likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s EMERGI-LITE mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or
endorsement of Respondent’s website.
Therefore, Respondent has used the disputed domain name in bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See State Fair of Texas v. Granbury.com, FA
95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent
registered the domain name <bigtex.net> to infringe
on Complainant’s
goodwill and attract Internet users to Respondent’s website); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Carroll, FA
97035 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 14, 2001) (finding bad faith where Respondent used
the domain name, for commercial gain, to intentionally
attract users to a
competitor of Complainant); see also Busy
Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet, Inc., D2000-0127 WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) (finding
bad faith where Respondent attempted to attract customers to its website,
<efitnesswholesale.com>,
and created confusion by offering similar
products for sale as Complainant).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
has been satisfied.
DECISION
Having established all three elements
required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief
should be hereby
granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the
domain name <emergilite.com> be
transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: May 15, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/722.html