Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Kraft Pizza Company and Kraft Foods
Holdings, Inc. v. Stealth Commerce a/k/a Telmex Management Services a/k/a Lost
in Space, SA a/k/a
Drevil
Claim Number: FA0205000113289
PARTIES
Complainant
is Kraft Pizza Company, Northfield,
IL (“Complainant”) represented by Mark
V.B. Partridge, of Pattishall,
McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson. Respondent is Stealth
Commerce a/k/a Telmex Management Services a/k/a Lost in Space SA a/k/a Drevil,
Majorca, British Virgin Islands
(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <kraftpizzacompany.com>,
registered with Intercosmos Media 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.
John
J. Upchurch as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on May 7, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the Complaint
on May 8, 2002.
On
May 8, 2002, Intercosmos Media Group confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <kraftpizzacompany.com>
is registered with Intercosmos Media Group and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Intercosmos Media
Group has verified that Respondent is bound by the Intercosmos Media 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
May 9, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of May 29,
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@kraftpizzacompany.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
June 13, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John
J. Upchurch 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
The
<kraftpizzacompany.com> domain name is identical to Complainant's
KRAFT PIZZA COMPANY mark and confusingly similar to Complainant’s KRAFT mark.
Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent
registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
failed to submit a Response.
FINDINGS
Complainant does business under the KRAFT
PIZZA COMPANY mark. Furthermore,
Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations with the United
States Patent and Trademark Office including:
Reg. Nos. 554,187; 670,330;
801,424; 1,052,526; and 1,690,114.
Complainant has invested millions of dollars in advertising and
promoting its KRAFT mark.
Respondent registered the disputed domain
name on January 17, 2002. Respondent is
using the disputed domain name for an adult escort and sexual content
website. Furthermore, Complainant’s
investigation has revealed that Respondent has registered over 471 infringing
domain names under the name
“Stealth,” and is currently offering 2,736 domain
names for sale under its alias “Drevil.”
Respondent has no license to use Complainant’s mark.
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 that it has
rights to the KRAFT PIZZA COMPANY mark because it has done business under the
name continuously. Furthermore,
Complainant has established that it has rights to the KRAFT mark through
numerous trademark registrations with the United
States Patent and Trademark
Office.
Respondent’s <kraftpizzacompany.com>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s common law KRAFT PIZZA COMPANY mark
because the omission of spaces and the addition
of a top-level domain name are
irrelevant when determining whether a mark is identical. See Fed’n of Gay Games, Inc. v.
Hodgson & Scanlon,
D2000-0432 (WIPO June 28, 2000) (finding that the domain name
<gaygames.com> is identical to Complainant's registered trademark
GAY
GAMES).
Moreover, the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s KRAFT mark because
it incorporates the entirety of Complainant’s
mark and merely adds the generic
terms “pizza” and “company” that describe the business Complainant is engaged
in. The addition of generic terms that
describe Complainant’s business to Complainant’s mark does not create a
distinct mark capable of
overcoming a claim of confusing similarity. See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownwell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept.
22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the Respondent’s domain name
combines the Complainant’s
mark with a generic term that has an obvious
relationship to the Complainant’s business); see also Marriott
Int’l v. Café au lait,
FA 93670, (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that the Respondent’s domain
name <marriott-hotel.com> is confusingly similar
to Complainant’s
MARRIOTT mark).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has
been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has failed to come forward
with a Response and therefore it is presumed that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests
in the disputed domain name. See Pavillion
Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000)
(finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission
that they have no
legitimate interest in the domain names).
Furthermore, when Respondent fails to
submit a Response the Panel is permitted to make all inferences in favor of
Complainant. 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”).
Respondent is using a confusingly similar
domain name in order to divert Internet users interested in Complainant to
Respondent’s
website. Respondent’s
website features pornography and an escort service. This type of use is not considered to be a bona fide offering of
goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial
or
fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
See Nat’l Football League
Prop., Inc. v. One Sex Entm't. Co., D2000-0118 (WIPO Apr. 17, 2000)
(finding that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the
domain names <chargergirls.com>
and <chargergirls.net> where the
Respondent linked these domain names to its pornographic website); see also
Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela,
FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that infringing on another's
well-known mark to provide a link to a pornographic
site is not a legitimate or
fair use).
There is no evidence and Respondent has
not come forward to establish that it is commonly known as KRAFT PIZZA COMPANY
or <kraftpizzacompany.com>.
Therefore Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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 Hartford
Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc., FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29,
2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in domain
names because
it is not commonly known by Complainant’s marks and Respondent
has not used the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering
of goods
and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent is using a domain name that is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous KRAFT mark and identical to
Complainant’s common
law KRAFT PIZZA COMPANY mark in order to attract Internet
users to its commercial pornography website.
This type of use is considered to be in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iv). See MatchNet plc. v. MAC Trading,
D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000) (finding that the association of a confusingly
similar domain name with a pornographic website can
constitute bad faith); see
also Ty, Inc. v. O.Z. Names,
D2000-0370 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding that absent contrary evidence, linking
the domain names in question to graphic, adult-oriented
websites is evidence of
bad faith).
Furthermore, based on the fame of
Complainant’s KRAFT mark it can be inferred that Respondent had notice of
Complainant’s mark when
it registered <kraftpizzacompany.com>. Therefore, Respondent’s registration of the
disputed domain name, despite this notice is evidence of bad faith
registration. See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA
94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith
includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly
known mark at the time
of registration); see also Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, [2002] USCA9 115; 279 F.3d 1135,
1148 (9th
Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) (finding that "[ w]here an alleged infringer chooses a
mark he knows to be similar to another, one can
infer an intent to
confuse").
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
shall be hereby
granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the
domain name <kraftpizzacompany.com> be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
John
J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: June 17, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/884.html