Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Whirlpool Properties, Inc. &
Whirlpool Corporation v. Ace Appliance Parts and Service
Claim Number: FA0204000109386
PARTIES
The
Complainants are Whirlpool Properties,
Inc and Whirlpool Corporation,
St. Joseph, MI (hereafter, collectively called “Complainant”) represented by Anne E. Naffziger, of Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. The Respondent is Ace Appliance Parts and Service, Bloomington, IN (“Respondent”) Vincent S. Taylor, of Vince Taylor’s Law Office.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <whirlpoolparts.com>
and <kitchenaidparts.com>,
registered with Network Solutions
and Bulkregister.com, respectively.
PANEL
The
undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially
and to the best of his or her 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 April 9, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on April 12, 2002.
On
April 11, 2002, Network Solutions and Bulkregister.com confirmed by e-mail to
the Forum that the domain names <whirlpoolparts.com>
and <kitchenaidparts.com> are
registered with Network Solutions and Bulkregister.com, respectively, and that
the Respondent is the current registrant of the
names. Network Solutions and Bulkregister.com have
verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions and Bulkregister.com
registration
agreements 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 16, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of May 6, 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@whirlpoolparts.com and postmaster@kitchenaidparts.com by
e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 6, 2002.
On
May 10, 2002, Complainant submitted a timely additional submission in
accordance with Forum Supplemental Rule 7.
On May 15, 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
Complainant
requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
Complainant
is Whirlpool Properties, Inc and its licensee Whirlpool Corporation.
Complainant
began using its WHIRLPOOL mark in 1906 and its KITCHENAID mark through a
predecessor-in interest in 1919.
Complainant has continuously and consistently used the marks in commerce
since those dates of first use, making the marks famous in
the United States
and worldwide.
Complainant
uses the marks to include a wide variety of goods and services, particularly
home appliances.
In
2001, Complainant’s net sales were $10.3 billion and it spent over $44 million
in advertising in the United States alone.
Complainant
also uses its WHIRLPOOL and KITCHENAID marks in connection with web sites
worldwide, including <whirlpool.com> and
<kitchenaid.com>. Complainant receives approximately 400,000
visits per months to its <whirlpool.com> site and approximately 325,000
visits per
month to its <kitchenaid.com> web site.
Complainant
owns numerous trademark and service mark registrations with the United States
Patent and Trademark Office for the marks,
WHIRLPOOL and KITCHENAID both alone,
with design features and in conjunction with other words for use with a wide
variety of goods
and services.
The
domain names at issue in this dispute are <whirlpoolparts.com> and
<kitchenaidparts.com>. The
domain names incorporate Complainant’s famous WHIRLPOOL and KITCHENAID marks
and are confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous
marks. It is likely that consumers will enter in
the domain names <whirlpoolparts.com> and <kitchenaidparts.com>
when they are looking for web sites regarding replacement and accessory parts
for their WHIRLPOOL and KITCHENAID products.
In so doing, consumers will assume that the web sites associated with
the domain names are affiliated with Complainant.
Respondent
had notice of Complainant’s famous marks and selected the domain names to
capitalize on the good will Complainant has established
in its WHIRLPOOL and
KITCHENAID marks. Respondent is trading
on that goodwill to provide goods and services for products competitive with
Complainant’s products protected
under the WHIRLPOOL and KITCHENAID marks. Respondent has no legitimate rights and
interests in the domain names.
Complainant
received a letter from Respondent advising Complainant that it owned the
disputed domain names and was placing the URLs
up for sale. Respondent advised Complainant that if it
was interested in purchase of the domain names, it had until November 21, 2001
to advise
Respondent of the same or the URLs would be listed with a domain name
broker.
Complainant
sent a cease and desist letter on November 29, 2001 objecting to its
registration and use of the domain names.
In
response to Complainant’s letter, Respondent alleged to be a sales dealer for
Complainant and refused to transfer the domain names
to Complainant. Complainant’s counsel sent a letter to
Respondent stating that even if it were a sales dealer, that dealer contracts preclude
the
registration of domain names incorporating Complainant’s marks. Complainant sent another letter to
Respondent again objecting to the registration and use of the disputed domain
names. Counsel for Respondent contacted
counsel for Complainant and requested authority to support Complainant’s
assertions. Complainant provided
several UDRP decisions. Respondent failed to respond.
Respondent
registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
has been in business since 1973.
Respondent
has been selling Whirlpool and KitchenAid appliances and parts since that
time. Respondent was the only service
company in its geographical area that provided warranty service for these
periods for an extended
period of time.
For
a number of years Respondent sold parts for these appliances, with average
sales of $150,000 to $200,000 per year.
Respondent regularly displayed promotional signs and posters indicating
that it sold part for these appliances.
Respondent
did e-mail Complainant concerning the possibility of selling the domain names
involved. However, those domain names
were never obtained with the intent to resell them and have been actively used
in the business of selling
Whirlpool parts by the Respondent. The domain names are nothing more that a
continuation of the signs and posters previously utilized in the business
location of the
Respondent indicating that these items were for sale.
Respondent
has an account with Complainant which continues to be active for ordering and
reselling Whirlpool and KitchenAid appliances
and parts. Respondent was a Whirlpool factory
authorized service center for the geographical region until the storefront
business was closed
in July, 2000.
The
domain names are used to advertise the Respondent’s company and the products
Respondent sells. The domain names were
not registered or used with the intent of confusing or misleading the general
public into thinking that Respondent
was the Complainant.
The
domain names are known “pointers” or “parked” domain names. When the names are typed into a browser they
“point”, direct and/or link that customer to Respondent’s web site which is
displayed
as Ace Appliance, not Whirlpool.
The web site does not mislead someone into thinking that they have contacted
Complainant.
Respondent’s
intent has been to represent Whirlpool as a qualified and honorable service and
parts outlet within the geographical
region and the World Wide Web and not to
confuse or mislead the public.
All
of the foregoing was communicated to the attorney for Complainant before this
litigation began.
C.
Additional Submissions
Complainant’s
Additional Response states that Respondent fails to acknowledge that it is not
an exclusive dealer for the sale of Whirlpool
and KitchenAid parts. Complainant sells parts and services for its
products and authorizes numerous other third parties to sell parts and services
on it
behalf. As such, Respondent’s use
of the domain names interferes with Complainant’s right to offer its parts and
services and its ability
to effectively authorize others to sell Whirlpool and
KitchenAid parts and services on its behalf.
Respondent also fails to respond to the fact that it offers parts and
services for competitors of Complainant on its web site. Respondent has shown no contract with
Complainant but even if Respondent is an authorized seller of Complainant’s
parts, it is precluded
from using Complainant’s famous trademarks to offer
parts and services for Complainant’s products, as well as parts and services
for
products sold by competitors of Complainant.
FINDINGS
1. Complainant is, and has been, a major
supplier of goods and services primarily associated with home appliances and
other such goods
since as early as 1906.
2. Complainant has operated under the marks
WHIRLPOOL since 1906 and KITCHENAID since 1919.
3. Complainant owns trademark and service
mark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the
marks, WHIRLPOOL
and KITCHENAID, which predate the registration of the disputed
domain names at issue in this case.
4. WHIRLPOOL and KITCHENAID are famous and
distinctive marks.
5. Complainant spends considerable sums of
money in promoting the marks in the United States and worldwide.
6. One part of Complainant’s business is to
sell parts to repair or upgrade its appliances and others goods.
7. Complainant operates a web site at
<whirlpool.com> that offers parts for sale to be installed in its
appliances and listings
of authorized suppliers of parts and services.
8. Complainant operates a web site at
<Kitchenaid.com> that offers various goods and services but no specific
listing for parts.
9. Both <whirlpool.com> and
<kitchenaid.com> receive hundreds of thousands of Internet contacts per
year.
10. Respondent is an appliance parts and
services company located in Bloomington, Indiana.
11. From 1973 until 2000, Respondent operated
a storefront business. Respondent sold
Whirlpool and KitchenAid appliances and parts under some manner of sales
agreement, the content of which is neither
supplied by Complainant nor
Respondent in this proceeding, from Complainant through account numbers
provided by Complainant to Respondent.
No evidence is presented that this arrangement was a grant of any
exclusive right on the part of Respondent to sell Complainant’s
goods in any
specific geographical area or as to any particular part or parts.
12. Respondent closed its storefront
operation in July of the year 2000. The
inference is drawn that Respondent’s business now operates on the Internet.
13. On January 30, 1999, Respondent
registered the domain name <WHIRLPOOLPARTS.COM>.
14. On April 21, 2000, Respondent registered
the domain name <KITCHENAIDPARTS.COM>.
15. The domain names were utilized by
Respondent as links to direct internet customers to a web site titled “Ace
Appliance” which offered
“online repair”, “schedule a service call”, “appliance
parts”, “express order form” and “part inquiry.” The site states that Ace Appliance provides parts from
thirty-four different appliance suppliers including Whirlpool, Sears, Admiral,
Amana, GE, Hotpoint, Maytag, Magic Chef, Tappan, Kelvinator, Frigidaire, and
Kitchen Aid, among others.
16. The time that these links were first used
is not disclosed in the pleadings, but Complainant apparently first became
aware of them
on November 16, 2001, when Respondent sent an e-mail to Complainant
offering to sell the domain names to Complainant or to list the
domain names
with a domain name broker on the global market. No sales price was mentioned in the e-mail.
17. Complainant promptly sent a cease and
desist letter to Respondent and there followed several such communications
between counsel for
Complainant, Respondent and counsel for Respondent. Complainant demanded transfer of the domain
names and when this was not done, filed a Complaint initiating this proceeding.
18. The domain names are confusingly similar
to Complainant’s trademarks.
19. Respondent has no rights and legitimate
interests in the domain names.
20. Respondent registered and used the domain
names 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 marks,
WHIRLPOOL and KITCHENAID due to its long use of the terms in commerce and its
registration of
them with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The remaining question to be answered under
this point is whether the domain names registered by Respondent are confusingly
similar
to Complainant’s trademarks.
The domain name, <whirlpoolparts.com>, is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s mark, WHIRLPOOL.
The disputed domain name is comprised of Complainant’s mark and the
generic term “parts.” Common geographic
qualifiers or generic nouns can rarely be relied upon to differentiate the mark
if the other elements of the domain
name comprise a mark or marks in which the
Complainant has rights. see AXA China Region Limited v. KANNET Ltd., D2000-1377
(WIPO Nov. 29, 2000). see also Sony
Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that
the addition or an ordinary descriptive word does not detract from the overall
impression
of the dominant part of the name); see also Cable News Network
LP, LLLP v. Ahmed Latif, FA100709 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2001) (holding
that the addition of the work “arabic” to complainant’s CNN trademark to create
the domain name “cnnarabic.com” failed to keep the result from being
confusingly similar to the trademark).
The same is true of the domain name <kitchenaidparts.com>. The addition of the word “parts” does
not detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the domain
name, to wit: KITCHENAID. Adding the
word “parts” to a mark does not eliminate confusing similarity. see EAuto,
L.L.C. v. Eauto Parts, D2000-0096 (WIPO Apr. 9, 2000) (comparing EAuto and
Eautoparts); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Off Road Equipment Parts, FA95497
(Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 10, 2000) (comparing CAT to <catparts.com>); see
also Komatsu Ltd. v. RKWeb Ltd, D2000-0995 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (comparing
KOMATSU and <komatsu-parts.com>). The names were chosen to make a reasonable Internet user assume
that the domain name is somehow affiliated with Complainant’s famous
marks.
That makes them confusingly similar. see
Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Indus. Sales Corp, FA95856 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec.
18, 2000).
Complainant prevails on this issue.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant bears the burden of showing
that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
names. Complainant contends that
because of its continuous use of the marks in commerce for over 70 years and
its trademark registrations,
it has exclusive right to use the marks. see
America Online, Inc. v. Tencent Communications Corp. FA93668 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Mar. 21, 2000).
Complainant contends that it never
licensed or authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s marks in the domain
names at issue. Respondent makes no
claim that it has ever been known as WHIRLPOOL or KITCHENAID. Respondent has at all times been known as
Ace Appliance Parts and Service.
As a result of Complainant’s showing, and
Respondent’s apparent lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain
names, <whirlpoolparts.com> and <kitchenaidparts.com>, the
burden must shift to Respondent to demonstrate its rights and legitimate
interests in the domain names. see Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v.
Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000).
Respondent
may demonstrate its rights and legitimate interests in the domain names by any
of the methods set out in Paragraph 4(c)
of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy. No argument is made
by Respondent that it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the
domain names, without intent for
commercial gain as permitted in Paragraph
4(c)(iii).
Respondent contends that since it has an
account with Complainant to purchase Complainant’s parts for resale to
consumers, it is thereby
authorized to use Complainant’s marks in the domain
name for the site where such parts are made available to consumers. The question presented is whether a bona
fide offering of goods or services began before commencement of this dispute. see
Paragraph 4(c)(i).
This
case is much like Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO
Nov. 6, 2001). In the Oki Data
case Respondent was an authorized Oki Data repair facility which registered
<okidataparts.com> thus provoking a domain name
dispute wherein the
holder of the trademark “OKIDATA” contended that the registration of the domain
name violated its rights in the
registered trademark and further that
Respondent’s agreement to provide repair services contained no trademark
license or authorization
to use the OKIDATA mark as a domain name. The Panel
concluded that to be “bona fide” the offering must meet several requirements.
The first is that Respondent must actually be offering the goods and services
at issue. Next, the Respondent must use
the site to sell only the trademarked goods, otherwise it could be using the
trademark to bait Internet
users and then switch them to other goods. The site must accurately disclose the
registrant’s relationship with the trademark owner; it may not, for example,
falsely suggest
that it is the trademark owner, or that the website is the
official site, if, in fact, it is only one of many sales agents. In that case, Respondent, the authorized
agent of Complainant in the Oki Data case prevailed because it met all
of the tests found by the Panel were required to be met.
The relationship between Complainant and
Respondent in this case is not as close as the relationship in the Oki Data case.
Respondent is not an authorized repair facility. It is merely a reseller of Complainant’s goods. But the true difficulty Respondent faces
under the rationale of the Oki Data case is that Respondent sells parts
for more than thirty companies who are direct competitors of the
Complainant. This is clearly displayed
on Respondent’s web site where it is stated at the top of the web page “For All
Brand Name Appliances.”
This does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods.
see Nikon, Inc. and Nikon Corporation v. Technilab, Inc., D2000-1774 (WIPO Feb. 26, 2001) (holding
that the use of Nikon-related domain names to sell Nikon and competitive
cameras is not a
legitimate use); see also Enzymatic Therapy, Inc. v. VNF
Nutrition, D2001-1310 (WIPO Dec. 17, 2001) (holding that Respondent, as
authorized distributor of Complainant’s goods, could not use Complainant’s
registered trademark in a domain name over the objection of Complainant, even
in the sale of Complainant’s goods); see also Easy Heat, Inc. v. Shelter
Products, D2001-0344 ( WIPO June 14, 2001) (“Most panels addressing this
issue have found that a distributor does not have the unfettered right
to
register a domain name incorporating the trademark of the licensor”).
Respondent shows no other justification
for using Complainant’s marks in domain names other than as a reseller of parts
obtained from
numerous suppliers or manufacturers, of which Complainant is just
one of the number. That relationship
does not prove that Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the
disputed domain names.
Complainant
prevails on this point.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy places the burden of proving each of the three elements upon
the Complainant. Evidence of
registration and use in bad faith may be proved in any of the ways set out in
Paragraph 4(b).
Complainant contends that the e-mail
received from Respondent offering to sell the domain names to Complainant
proves the elements
set out in Paragraph 4(b)(i). This Paragraph requires proof of circumstances indicating that
Respondent registered or acquired the domain names primarily for the
purpose of
selling them to Complainant or a competitor.
Complainant presents no evidence that Respondent registered the domain
names for the purpose of selling them.
Respondent states that the domain names were registered to be used to
sell parts on the Internet. The
evidence supports this allegation. The
elements of Paragraph 4(b)(i) stand unproved.
Complainant contends that the
registration of the domain names interferes with the owner of the trademarks
“rights to offer its parts
and services and its ability to effectively
authorize others to sell Whirlpool and KitchenAid parts and services on its
behalf. This cannot be a violation of
Paragraph 4(b)(ii) since no proof is presented that Respondent has engaged in a
pattern of such conduct.
No evidence is presented that the domain
names were registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a
competitor
as set out in Paragraph 4(b)(iii).
The evidence suggests that Complainant did not even know of the
registrations of the domain name <whirlpoolparts.com> for more
than a year after it was registered. No
allegation or proof of actual confusion on the part of any consumer is shown in
the materials presented in the case.
The elements of Paragraph 4(b)(iii) stand unproved.
Paragraph 4(b)(iv) states that if a party by using the domain name
intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet
users to its
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, then such conduct constitutes evidence of
bad faith. Complainant argues that
Respondent is doing just that.
Respondent argues that it is simply doing what it has done for years,
that is to say, selling Whirlpool and KitchenAid parts to consumers. Respondent contends that the domain names
are simply an extension of the posting of signs and advertisements in its store
that announced
availability of Whirlpool and KitchenAid parts for sale. What Respondent fails to recognize is that
posting signs in a store in Bloomington, Indiana, is very different from the
use of domain
names on the Internet.
The Internet covers the entire country.
It converts Respondent from an operator in a small area to an operator
on a national scale. This does indeed
lead to a conflict between Respondent and Complainant in the sale of parts
throughout the country. It creates the
situation disapproved of in Mikimoto (America) Co. v. Asanti Fine Jewellers
Ltd., AF-0126 (eResolution Arp. 8, 2000) where it was found that for the
Respondent distributor of Mikimoto, the Complainant, to control
the disputed
domain name which is identical to Complainant’s trademarks and sites that link
from it, gave the Respondent, merely
one of many distributors, a preferred
position with respect to controlling referrals and thus placed Respondent in a
unique position
as to other distributors of Complainant’s products.
This is not a case where Respondent is an
exclusive dealer appointed by Complainant to sell its goods and the dealer
sells no competitor’s
products. In
cases of that type, Panels have been reluctant to find a lack of legitimate
rights and interests and bad faith when the dealer
registers and uses a domain
name incorporating Complainant’s trademark for the sale of Complainant’s goods.
see Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware, D2000-0187 (WIPO
May 11, 2000); ABIT Computer Corporation v. Motherboard Super Store, Inc., D2000-0399
(WIPO Aug. 8, 2000); Columbia ParCar Corp. v. S. Brustas GmbH, D2001-0779
(WIPO Aug. 23, 2001).
But where the registrant is one of many
distributors of Complainant’s products, the distributor has no right, over the
objection of
a trademark holder, to register and use a domain name that
incorporates the trademark. see Avon Products, Inc. v. Jongsoo Lee, D2001-0272)
where an “Avon Lady” located in Korea registered “avonkorea.com” for the
Internet sale of Avon products. The
Panel decided the registration and use was impermissible. In the Avon Products case, the
distributor was selling only Avon products.
In this case Respondent is selling parts for a number of companies that
are competitors of Complainant as well as selling Complainant’s
parts. This
case is somewhat similar to Nikon, Inc. v. Technilab. Inc., D2000-1774
(WIPO Feb 26, 2001). Respondent was a
camera store that distributed Nikon cameras as well as a number of competitor
cameras. The dealer registered and
opened a web site under the domain name, <nikoncamera.com>. On the web
site Respondent offered for
sale not only Nikon cameras, but cameras of Nikon’s
competitors. The dealer/respondent contended that since it was a dealer for
Nikon,
it was reasonable to believe that respondent was authorized to register
the domain names. The Panel found the
majority view was to reject any claim by a licensee to the right to register a
domain name consisting of, or containing,
the licensor’s trademark and that the
right to resell products does not create the right to use a mark more
extensively than required
to advertise and the sell the product. The Panel found bad faith on part of
Respondent. One of the grounds was that
“the use of the <nikoncamera.com> domain name for a site that sold Nikon
products and those of its
competitors constitutes an improper use of
Complainant’s marks to attract Internet users to Respondent’s site for
commercial gain
by creating a likelihood of confusion as to source,
sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the site.”
The Panel can see little difference
between this case and the Nikon case nor can the Panel see that the
results should not be the same.
It is decided that based upon all of the
evidence and lack of evidence and the inferences properly drawn from the
evidence, Respondent
registered and used the disputed domain names in bad
faith.
DECISION
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS
PANEL THAT THE DOMAIN NAMES, <WHIRLPOOLPARTS.COM> AND
<KITCHENAIDPARTS.COM>, NOW REGISTERED
TO RESPONDENT, ACE APPLIANCE PARTS
AND SERVICE, BE TRANSFERRED TO COMPLAINANT, WHIRLPOOL PROPERTIES, INC. AND
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: May 24, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/770.html