Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Panago Pizza Inc. v. Ioannis Panago
Claim Number: FA0204000110773
The
Complainant is Panago Pizza Inc.,
Abbotsford, BC, CANADA (“Complainant”), of Panago Pizza Inc. The Respondent is Ioannis Panago, Delta, BC, CANADA (“Respondent”).
The
domain name at issue is <panago.biz>,
registered with Namescout.com.
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.
Bruce
E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant
has standing to file a Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy (“STOP”) Complaint,
as it timely filed the required Intellectual
Property (IP) Claim Form with the
Registry Operator, NeuLevel. As an IP
Claimant, Complainant timely noted its intent to file a STOP Complaint against
Respondent with the Registry Operator, NeuLevel
and with the National
Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”).
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 22, 2002; the Forum
received a hard copy of the Complaint on
April 23, 2002.
On
April 24, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of May 14,
2002 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was
transmitted to Respondent in compliance
with paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for
the Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy (the “STOP Rules”).
A
timely response was received and determined to be complete on May 8, 2002.
On May 30, 2002, pursuant to STOP Rule 6(b), the Forum
appointed Bruce E. Meyerson
as the single 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 STOP Rules. Therefore, the Panel
may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with
the STOP Policy, STOP Rules, the
Forum’s STOP Supplemental Rules and any rules
and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of
any Response
from Respondent.
Transfer
of the domain name from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant
acknowledges that Respondent’s last name is Panago. Complainant contends, however, that because Respondent also owns
the domain name <panago.info>, it is therefore unnecessary
for Respondent
to have yet another website bearing the same name. Complainant also contends that consumers may inadvertently go to
Respondent’s website and this would be damaging to Complainant because
“Mr.
Panago, or a member of his immediate family residing at the same address, has
popular political affiliations from which Complainant
would prefer to distance
itself.”
B.
Respondent
Respondent,
Ioannis Panago, asserts that he intends to use the disputed domain name to
expand his financial planning business.
He claims that there is “no law in this world that states that one
company or individual can be the only holder of a domain name.”
Complainant is the owner of
<panago.com>, a website used to promote its national franchise business
and the products it sells
through its franchised outlets. Complainant holds one Canadian trademark
registration identical to the disputed domain name, and six United States
trademark registrations,
also identical to the domain name at issue. The Respondent’s last name is Panago. Mr. Panago is a financial planner and uses
the website to promote his financial planning practice.
Paragraph 15(a) of the STOP 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 STOP Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the
following three elements to obtain an order
that a domain name should be
transferred:
(1) the domain name is identical 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 or is being used in bad faith.
Due
to the common authority of the ICANN policy governing both the Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and these
STOP proceedings, the Panel
will exercise its discretion to rely on relevant UDRP precedent where
applicable.
Under
the STOP proceedings, a STOP Complaint may only be filed when the domain name
in dispute is identical to a trademark or service
mark for which a Complainant
has registered an Intellectual Property (IP) claim form. Therefore, every STOP proceeding necessarily
involves a disputed domain name that is identical to a trademark or service
mark in which
a Complainant asserts rights.
The existence of the “.biz” generic top-level domain (gTLD) in the
disputed domain name is not a factor for purposes of determining
that a
disputed domain name is not identical to the mark in which the Complainant
asserts rights.
As
Complainant holds one Canadian trademark registration identical to the disputed
domain name, and six United States trademark registrations,
also identical to
the domain name at issue, Complainant has “rights” in the mark.
Respondent
currently utilizes an affiliated domain name, <panago.info>, and plans to
use the contested <panago.biz> domain name as an additional tool
in his career as a financial planner.
Respondent contends that he will be able to expand his insurance
business by having a personalized presence on the Internet, thus
evidencing a
bona fide offering of services under STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent
has legitimate interests and rights in the contested <panago.biz> domain
name pursuant to STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because it reflects his surname. See
G. A. Modefine S.A. v. Mani, D2001-0537 (WIPO July 20, 2001) (finding
that the respondent had rights and legitimate interests in the domain name,
where it reflects
the initials of his first and middle name, combined with its
entire last name); see also G.A. Modefine S.A. v. A.R. Mani,
D2001-0537 (WIPO July 20, 2001) (finding that a person who registers a variant
of their full name has rights and legitimate interests
in the domain name).
Complainant’s
objection to the unstated political ideology of Respondent or his family is an
insufficient reason to grant Complainant
exclusive rights over the mark in
“cyberspace.” Moreover, Respondent’s
business differs substantially from that of Complainant so that the goods and
services remain distinct. See Philippe
Tenenhaus v. Telepathy, Inc., FA
94355 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 17, 2000) (finding that respondent has rights and
legitimate interests where complainant failed to
show that he should be granted
exclusive use of a domain name as many other organizations use the generic
term); see also Asphalt Research Tech., Inc. v. Anything.com,
D2000-0967 (WIPO Oct. 2, 2000) (finding that respondent has a legitimate
interest to use a trademark or domain name in which others
hold an exclusive
right in relation to different goods and services, providing they are sufficiently distinct from those of others so
as to distinguish the goods or services of respondent).
Having found that Respondent has legitimate interests in
the domain name, it is unnecessary to consider the issue of bad faith.
The Complaint is dismissed.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: June 4, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/813.html