Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
ETW Corp. v. Jim Mallamo d/b/a Kids Golf
Claim Number: FA0302000145284
PARTIES
Complainant
is ETW Corp., Cleveland, OH
(“Complainant”) represented by Mark S.
Lee of Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP.
Respondent is James Mallamo d/b/a
Kids Golf, North Palm Beach, FL (“Respondent”) represented by James Mallamo of Kids Golf.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED
DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <tigerwoodsfoundation.org>
and <tigerwoodslearningcenter.org> registered with Network Solutions, Inc.
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.
Timothy D. O’Leary as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on February 13, 2003; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on February 18, 2003.
On
February 24, 2003, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum
that the domain names <tigerwoodsfoundation.org>
and <tigerwoodslearningcenter.org> are registered with Network
Solutions, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the
names. Network Solutions, Inc. has
verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. 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
February 28, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”),
setting a deadline
of March 20, 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@tigerwoodsfoundation.org and
postmaster@tigerwoodslearningcenter.org by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and
determined to be complete on March 20, 2003.
A timely Additional Submission was
received from Complainant on March 24, 2003.
On April 1, 2003, pursuant to Complainant’s request to
have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Timothy D.
O’Leary as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain
names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
contends that:
1)
The domain
names <tigerwoodsfoundation.org> and <tigerwoodslearningcenter.org> are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s
federally-registered trademarks;
2)
Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interest in the domain names;
and
3)
The domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
As
to Contention number 1:
Complainant states that:
The
<tigerwoodsfoundation.org> is identical to Complainant’s Tiger Woods
Foundation mark. It is the exact
spelling of the mark.
The <tigerwoodslearningcenter.org> merely adds a
generic phrase, namely “learning center” to the exact spelling of the mark. The addition of the “com” suffix and the
omission of a space between the words of a trademark do not sufficiently
distinguish a domain
name from a trademark in determining whether a domain name
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark.
Further,
Respondent’s use of the identical and confusingly similar domain names is
likely to confuse the public into wrongly believing
that Respondent and
Respondent’s web pages are sponsored by or associated with Complainant.
As to Contention number 2: Complainant states that:
Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interest in the domain names for the following reasons: Respondent has not made
any legitimate
use of the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering
of goods and services. Respondent
secured advertising on <tigerwoodsfoundation.org>
and linked to a website with
advertising. Unauthorized solicitation
of donations does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.
Respondent has no independent right to
the domain names. Respondent is not
commonly known by and does not offer goods and services under the names Tiger
Woods or Tiger Woods Foundation.
Respondent is not making any legitimate
non-commercial or fair use of the domain names.
As
to Contention number 3: Respondent demonstrates bad faith
registration and use of the domain names by trying to sell them for a profit to
Complainant for
the sum of $350,000.
By
using the domain name <tigerwoodsfoundation.org>
Respondent has intentionally
attempted to attract internet users to its web page by creating a likelihood of
confusion as to the source,
sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its
website for commercial gain.
B.
Respondent
contends that:
Response
of Respondent to Contention No. 1: Respondent states that there is no evidence
of trademark infringement or confusion between Respondent’s domain names and
Complainant’s
marks.
Response
of Respondent to Contention No. 2: Respondent states that he had a conversation
during a lunch in 1997 with a member of Complainant’s Board of Directors, Mr.
Grant,
in which Respondent proposed a business opportunity for Complainant
wherein Respondent would help raise $500,000 for the Tiger Woods
Foundation. Respondent states that he
ordered the <tigerwoodsfoundation.org> with the pure intention of making it
available to Complainant once he got the go-ahead from Mr. Grant. Respondent states that this represents a
legitimate interest in these domain names.
Response
of Respondent to Contention No. 3: Respondent states that Complainant through
Mr. Ory wrote and told Respondent Complainant was interested in the domain
names and asked
what Respondent was looking for in return for assignment. Respondent answered $350,000 for an
assignment and explained the need to be compensated for expenses. Respondent states the $350,000 was for the
assignment and that this does not constitute a sale. There is no bad faith here.
Respondent states that the purchase of the domain
name <tigerwoodslearningcenter.org> was not in
secret but was consistent with the objective of the business proposal presented
to Mr. Grant.
Respondent contends it did not register the disputed
domain names in bad faith but with the intention of making the domain names
available
to Complainant.
Respondent states there has been no intention to
attract Internet users and divert traffic to Respondent’s own web page for
commercial
gain. Respondent states that
Infoback transfers viewers to its own website as a courtesy and as a matter of
its normal course of business.
FINDINGS
Identical or Confusingly
Similar Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant
provides evidence of trademark registrations with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the TIGER
WOODS mark (Reg. No. 2,306,354
registered January 4, 2000) and the TIGER WOODS FOUNDATION mark (Reg. No.
2,193,919 registered October
6, 1998). Complainant uses the marks in relation
to the famous golfer Tiger Woods’ golf activities and charitable activities.
Complainant
operates websites at both <tigerwoods.com> and
<twfound.org>.
I find that
Complainant has common law rights in its name because the name “Tiger Woods”
has sufficient secondary association with
Complainant. See Jagger v. Hammerton, FA 95261 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Sept. 11, 2000) (Complainant held common law trademark rights in his
famous name MICK JAGGER); see also
MPL Communications Ltd v. Hammerton, FA 95633 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 25,
2000) (Complainant owned common law rights to the name Paul McCartney).
Complainant
argues that the <tigerwoodsfoundation.org> domain name is identical to its TIGER WOODS
FOUNDATION mark because the disputed domain name incorporates the entire mark,
omits
the spaces between the words and adds the generic top-level domain
(“gTLD”) “.org” to the end of the mark. I find that the omission
of spaces
between the words and the addition of a gTLD to the end of a mark do not
sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name
from Complainant’s mark. See
Hannover Ruckversicherungs-AG v. Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7,
2002) (finding <hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as
spaces are impermissible
in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as
‘.com’ or ‘.net’ is required in domain names”).
Complainant also
argues that the <tigerwoodslearningcenter.org> domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIGER WOODS mark because the domain name
incorporates Complainant’s entire mark
and adds the generic words “learning
center” to the end of the mark. I find that the addition of generic words to
the end of a famous
mark does not sufficiently differentiate the disputed
domain name from the famous mark in which Complainant has rights. See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin)
Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026
(WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in
dispute contains the identical mark of the
Complainant combined with a generic
word or term); see also Sony
Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that
“[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word . . . nor the suffix
‘.com’
detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in
each case, namely the trademark SONY” and thus Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
is satisfied).
Rights and Legitimate
Interests Policy
¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant
asserts that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <tigerwoodsfoundation.org> and <tigerwoodslearningcenter.org> domain names. ¶ 4(a)(ii). I find
that Respondent’s offer to sell or assign the disputed domain names is neither
a bona fide offering of goods or
services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See J. Paul Getty Trust v. Domain 4 Sale &
Co., FA 95262 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2000) (finding rights or legitimate
interests do not exist when one has made no use of the websites
that are
located at the domain names at issue, other than to sell the domain names for
profit).
The website at
the disputed domain name notes that the website is “under construction.” I find
that Respondent’s failure to develop
a website demonstrates Respondent’s lack
of any rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Vestel
Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret AS v. Kahveci, D2000-1244 (WIPO Nov. 11, 2000)
(finding that “merely registering the domain name is not sufficient to
establish rights or legitimate
interests for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of
the Policy”).
Complainant
contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and
has never been authorized to use Complainant’s
marks. I conclude that
Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests because Respondent is not
commonly known by the disputed
domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See
RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001)
(Interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) “to require a showing that one has been
commonly known by
the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to
prevail”).
Registration and Use in Bad
Faith Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant contends
that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name registrations to
sell them to Complainant in exchange
for a business relationship or $350,000.
Despite the fact that Complainant initiated the contact with Respondent
regarding the assignment
of the domain name registrations, I find that
Respondent registered the domain names primarily for the purpose of selling,
renting
or otherwise transferring the domain name registrations to Complainant
for valuable consideration in excess of out-of-pocket costs
directly related to
the domain names, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Grundfos A/S v. Lokale, D2000-1347 (WIPO Nov. 27, 2000) (finding
that a failure to use the domain name in any context other than to offer it for
sale to
Complainant amounts to a use of the domain name in bad faith); see also Little Six, Inc. v. Domain For Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2001)
(finding Respondent’s offer to sell the domain name at issue to Complainant was
evidence
of bad faith).
Complainant also
argues that Respondent is using the <tigerwoodsfoundation.org>
and <tigerwoodslearningcenter.org> domain names to divert Internet traffic to its website for its commercial
gain. I find this use is evidence of bad faith registration
and use pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Northway,
FA 95464 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 11, 2000) (finding that the Respondent
registered the domain name <statefarmnews.com> in bad
faith because
Respondent intended to use Complainant’s marks to attract the public to the web
site without permission from Complainant).
DECISION
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, I conclude that
relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <tigerwoodsfoundation.org>
and <tigerwoodslearningcenter.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Timothy D. O’Leary, Panelist
Dated: April 17, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/389.html