Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Gerber Products Company v.
Anti-Globalization Domains
Claim
Number: FA0311000210256
Complainant is Gerber Products Company, Fremont, MI
(“Complainant”) represented by Baila H.
Celedonia, of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., 1133 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
10036-6799. Respondent is Anti-Globalization Domains, 5444
Arlington Ave. #G14, Bronx, NY 10471 (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <wwwgerber.com>, registered with Intercosmos
Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.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.
The
Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on November 11, 2003; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on November 12, 2003.
On
November 11, 2003, Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.Com confirmed
by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <wwwgerber.com> is
registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.Com and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Intercosmos
Media Group, Inc.
d/b/a Directnic.Com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Intercosmos
Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.Com
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
November 17, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting
a deadline of December 8, 2003 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@wwwgerber.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
December 17, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed
the Honorable Charles K.
McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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.
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <wwwgerber.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GERBER mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <wwwgerber.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <wwwgerber.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant owns
numerous registrations for its GERBER mark with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg.
Nos. 574727, 560057, 405310). Complainant began using GERBER in commerce
in 1928. Complainant has used, promoted
and advertised the GERBER mark extensively in the field of baby food and infant
care products in the
United States and throughout the world. As a result, the GERBER mark has become
famous and is an important asset to Complainant. In addition, Complainant owns the domain name,
<gerber.com>, as well as many variations thereof.
Respondent
registered <wwwgerber.com> on April 6, 2003. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to
direct Internet users to another website, located at
<abortionismurder.org>, which
ostensibly conveys Respondent’s viewpoints
relating to a political issue.
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 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 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 Respondent
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
Complainant has
rights; and
(2) 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.
Complainant has
established rights in GERBER through registration with the USPTO and continuous
use since 1928.
The disputed
domain name, <wwwgerber.com>, is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s GERBER mark because adding “www” before one’s registered mark, in
order to capitalize on
the probability that an Internet user may fail to insert
a period between the two domain name sections, fails to alleviate the confusing
similarity. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug.
1, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is
confusingly similar
to Complainant’s registered trademark BANK OF AMERICA
because it “takes advantage of a typing error that users commonly make when
searching on the Internet”); see also Marie Claire Album v. Blakely,
D2002-1015 (WIPO Dec. 23, 2002) (holding that the letters "www" are
not distinct in the "Internet world" and
thus Respondent 's
<wwwmarieclaire.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's
MARIE CLAIRE trademark); see also Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. S1A, FA
128683 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2002) (holding confusing similarity has been
established because the prefix "www" does
not sufficiently
differentiate the <wwwneimanmarcus.com> domain name from Complainant's
NEIMAN-MARCUS mark).
Therefore,
Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent has
not asserted any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Therefore, the Panel may accept all
reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant, without the
benefit of a Response. See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM,
D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the Panel to draw
adverse inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply
to the Complaint); see
also 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).
Additionally,
there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain
name, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The WHOIS registration information fails to imply that Respondent is
commonly known by the name. See Tercent Inc.
v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating, “nothing in
Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly
known by’
the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)
does not apply); see also
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).
Furthermore,
Respondent is engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence in itself, that
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests
in the disputed domain
name. See Diners Club Int’l Ltd. v.
Domain Admin******It's all in the name******, FA 156839 (Nat. Arb. Forum
June 23, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s <wwwdinersclub.com> domain
name, a typosquatted version of Complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark, was evidence in
and of itself that Respondent lacks rights
or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name vis á vis Complainant); see also Toronto-Dominion Bank
v. Karpachev, 188 F.Supp.2d 110, 114 (D. Mass. 2002) (finding that,
because Respondent's sole purpose in selecting the domain names was to cause
confusion with Complainant's
website and marks, its use of the names was not in
connection with the offering of goods or services or any other fair use); see
also Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball
Leagues v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting as a
means of redirecting consumers against their will to another site, does not
qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services, whatever may be the goods
or services offered at that site”).
Therefore,
Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent has
evidenced bad faith registration and use by engaging in typosquatting. See Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues v. Zuccarini,
D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting is the intentional misspelling
of words with intent to intercept and siphon off
traffic from its intended
destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of
itself evidence of bad faith”); see also L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Cupcake Patrol, FA 96504 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar.
12, 2001) (finding that Respondent acted in bad faith by establishing a pattern
of registering misspellings
of famous trademarks and names); see also
Canadian Tire Corp., Ltd. v. domain adm’r no.valid.email@worldnic.net
1111111111, D2003-0232 (WIPO May 22, 2003) (holding that an “absence of a
dot between the ‘www’ and
‘canadiantire.com’ [in the <wwwcanadiantire.com> domain name is] likely
to confuse Internet users, encourage them to access
Respondent’s site” and
evidenced bad faith registration and use of the domain name); see also Medline, Inc.
v. Domain Active Pty. Ltd., FA 139718 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6, 2003) (“[I]n typosquatting cases, such as this one, it
would be difficult for Respondent to prove to the Panel that it did not have
actual knowledge
of Complainant’s distinctive MEDLINE mark when it registered
the infringing <wwwmedline.com> domain name”).
Furthermore,
Respondent registered Complainant’s famous mark in its entirety, which is
evidence of Respondent’s knowledge of Complainant’s
rights in the GERBER
mark. See RE/MAX Int’l, Inc. v.
Seocho, FA 142046 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 25, 2003) (inferring that
Respondent’s registration of the <wwwremax.com> domain name,
incorporating
Complainant’s entire mark, was done with actual notice of
Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to registering the infringing domain
name, evidencing bad faith); see also 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
Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (holding
that “there is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably
should
have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or
constructively”).
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <wwwgerber.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr.
(Ret.), Panelist
Dated:
December 26, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/1132.html