Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
America Online, Inc. v. Markus Koelmel
Claim Number: FA0204000112604
Complainant
is America Online, Inc., Dulles, VA,
USA (“Complainant”) represented by James
R. Davis, II, of Arent Fox Kintner
Plotkin & Kahn. Respondent is Markus Koelmel, Musterstadt, GERMANY
(“Respondent”).
The
domain name at issue is <icq.biz>,
registered with Secura GMBH.
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.
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 26, 2002; the Forum
received a hard copy of the Complaint on
April 27, 2002.
On
May 1, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of May 21,
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”).
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 25, 2002, pursuant to STOP Rule 6(b), the Forum
appointed John J. Upchurch 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
The
<icq.biz> domain name is identical to Complainant's ICQ mark.
Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the <icq.biz> domain
name.
Respondent
registered the <icq.biz> domain name in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
failed to submit a Response.
Complainant registered its ICQ mark
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as Registration Number
2,411,657, and in Germany
as Registration Number 39859180. The mark is used in connection with the
advertising and promotion of various products and services including the ICQ
online communications
service. Complainant also registered and operates <icq.com>. Complainant’s Internet service has over 120
million registered users worldwide.
Respondent registered the disputed domain
name on March 27, 2002. Respondent is
not licensed by Complainant to use the ICQ mark. When Complainant requested Respondent to transfer the domain name
to Complainant, Respondent demanded that Complainant pay ten times
the domain
name registration fee.
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.”
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 STOP Rules and draw such
inferences it considers appropriate
pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the STOP
Rules.
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.
Complainant
has established that it has rights in the ICQ mark through registration in the
United States and Germany. Respondent’s
<icq.biz> domain name is identical to Complainant’s ICQ mark.
The
Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
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 has not come forward, and
there is no evidence on record to prove that Respondent owns a trademark or
service mark for
ICQ or <icq.biz>. Without this evidence Respondent has not established that it has
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant
to STOP
Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See Nat’l
Acad. Of Recording Arts & Sci Inc. v. Lsites, FA 103059 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Feb. 11, 2002) (finding that, because Respondent did not come forward
with a Response, the Panel could
infer that it had no trademark or service
marks identical to <grammy.biz> and therefore had no rights or legitimate
interests
in the domain name).
Based on the fame of Complainant’s mark
it may be inferred that Respondent intended to use the disputed domain name in
order to attract
Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s website by creating a
likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, and affiliation
of <icq.biz>. This type of use is not considered to be a
bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to STOP Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See William L. Lyon &
Assocs., Inc. v. Yata, FA 103043 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 21, 2002) (finding the Respondent’s “intent to
trade [on] the goodwill of Complainant’s mark, by attracting Internet users
confused as to the
likely affiliation between Complainant and Respondent’s
website” indicated the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests
pursuant
to STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Credit Suisse Group
o/b/o Winterthur Ins. Co. v. Pal-Ex Kft, FA 102971 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb.
25, 2002) (“The use of another's trademark to attract users to Respondent's
domain is not considered
to be a bona fide offering of goods or services
pursuant to STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
There is no evidence on record that
Respondent is commonly known as anything other than Markus Koelmel. Therefore, Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to STOP Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, D2000-1397
(WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where one
“would be hard pressed to find a person who
may show a right or legitimate
interest” in a domain name containing Complainant's distinct and famous NIKE
trademark); see also Nat’l Acad. Of Recording Arts & Sci Inc. v.
Lsites, FA 103059 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 11, 2002) (finding that the famous
nature of Complainant’s GRAMMY mark prevented Respondent from
being commonly
known by <grammy.biz>).
The Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶
4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
When contacted by Complainant, Respondent
offered to sell the disputed domain name for ten times the cost of the
registration fee. This is evidence of
bad faith registration pursuant to STOP Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Xerox Corp. v. Imaging Solution, D2001-0313 (WIPO Apr. 25, 2001)
(finding that the Respondent registered the domain name in the hope and
expectation of being able
to sell it to the Complainant for a sum of money in
excess of its out-of-pocket expenses and/or in the hope of forcing the
establishment
of a business arrangement beneficial to the Respondent).
Furthermore, it can inferred that
Respondent intends to use the disputed domain name to attract Internet users
interested in Complainant
to Respondent’s website for Respondent’s commercial
gain. This is evidence of bad faith
pursuant to STOP Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See
Pillsbury Co. v. Prebaked Scandinavia ab, FA 102970 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan.
31, 2002) (finding registration of a domain name identical to Complainant’s
mark to be in bad faith
under STOP Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) when use of the domain
name would likely cause confusion as to the affiliation between Respondent and
Complainant); see also State Fair
of Texas v. Granbury.com, FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000) (finding
bad faith where the Respondent registered the domain name <bigtex.net>
to
infringe on the Complainant’s goodwill and attract Internet users to the
Respondent’s website).
The Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶
4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under the Start-up Trademark Opposition
Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall
be hereby granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the
domain name <icq.biz> be transferred from Respondent to
Complainant and subsequent challenges under the STOP Policy against this domain
name shall not be permitted.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: June 28, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/978.html