Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
U.S. Franchise Systems, Inc. v. Thurston
Howell III
Claim
Number: FA0303000152457
Complainant is
U.S. Franchise Systems, Inc., Atlanta, GA (“Complainant”) represented
by Steven M. Weinberg, of Greenberg Traurig, LLP. Respondent is
Thurston Howell III, Las Vegas, NV (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <microtels.com>, registered with Bulkregister.Com,
Inc.
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 March 28, 2003; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on March 28, 2003.
On
March 28, 2003, Bulkregister.Com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the domain name <microtels.com> is registered with Bulkregister.Com,
Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Bulkregister.Com, Inc. has verified that
Respondent is bound by the Bulkregister.Com, 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
March 28, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
April 17, 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@microtels.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
May 1, 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 <microtels.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MICROTEL mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <microtels.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <microtels.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
U.S. Franchise Systems, Inc., holds a federally registered service mark for the
MICROTEL mark (U.S. Reg. No. 1,670,688,
registered on the Principal Register of
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on December 31, 1991). Complainant, the ninth largest hotel company
in terms of number of rooms in the U.S., uses the mark in conjunction with its
hotel
and motel services. To date,
Complainant has registered over 17 domain names incorporating its MICROTEL
mark.
Respondent,
Thurston Howell III, registered the <microtels.com> domain name on
September 17, 2002, and is not licensed or authorized to use the MICROTEL mark
for any purpose. As late as February of
2003 the disputed domain name redirected Internet users to the <travelnow.com>
domain name, which hosts
the “cheapestroom.com” search engine. This search engine assists Internet users in
finding and making travel and lodging reservations. Currently, Respondent links
the disputed
domain name to a website that posts information regarding the
company Talcomp Management Services, which provides an array of computer
services to consumers.
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 the MICROTEL mark
through proof of registration of the mark on the Principal Register of the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office, as well
as through continuous use of the mark in
commerce.
Respondent’s <microtels.com>
domain name is confusingly similar
to Complainant’s MICROTEL mark. The
disputed domain name entirely incorporates Complainant’s mark, with the sole
addition of the letter “s.” By merely
pluralizing Complainant’s registered mark, Respondent failed to register a
domain name sufficiently unique to defeat a confusing
similarity analysis under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Universal
City Studios, Inc. v. HarperStephens, D2000-0716 (WIPO Sept. 5, 2000)
(finding that deleting the letter “s” from Complainant’s UNIVERSAL STUDIOS
STORE mark did not change
the overall impression of the mark and thus made the
disputed domain name confusingly similar to it); see also Cream Pie Club v. Halford, FA 95235
(Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that “the addition of an ‘s’ to the
end of Complainant’s mark, ‘Cream Pie’ does
not prevent the likelihood of
confusion caused by the use of the remaining identical mark. The domain name
<creampies.com>
is similar in sound, appearance, and connotation”).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that the <microtels.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MICROTEL mark under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant
carries the burden of demonstrating that Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the <microtels.com> domain name. If
Complainant is able to make a prima facie case against Respondent, this
burden shifts to Respondent, and as Respondent did not respond to the
Complaint, this results in a
finding for Complainant on this element. Complainant can make a prima facie
case by showing that the three examples demonstrating rights or legitimate
interests in a domain name listed in Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i)-(iii)
would not be
applicable to Respondent. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that once Complainant asserts that
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with
respect to the domain,
the burden shifts to Respondent to provide credible evidence that substantiates
its claim of rights and legitimate
interests in the domain name); see also
G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002)
(holding where Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests
with respect to the domain name it is incumbent on
Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion
because
this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the
respondent”).
Respondent uses the <microtels.com>
domain name to redirect Internet users to a
commercial website promoting the services of Talcomp Management Services. While this appears to be a legitimate
business, nothing at the disputed domain name references the MICROTEL
mark. Using Complainant’s mark and the
goodwill surrounding that mark as a means of attracting Internet users to an
unrelated business is
not a bona fide offering of goods or services under
Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). Similarly, such diversionary use of Complainant’s mark for
a
commercially oriented website is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of
the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
See Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v.
R & S Tech., Inc.,
FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s commercial
use of the domain name to confuse and divert Internet
traffic is not a
legitimate use of the domain name); see also Big Dog Holdings, Inc. v. Day, FA 93554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9,
2000) (finding no legitimate use when Respondent was diverting consumers to its
own website by
using Complainant’s trademarks).
The website at the disputed domain name hosts information about a
company known by the name Talcomp Management Services. Respondent’s
WHOIS
contact information lists its name as Thurston Howell III. From these facts,
the Panel concludes that Respondent is not “commonly
known by” the disputed
domain name as contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)[1].
See Tercent Inc. v. Lee 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 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").
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the
<microtels.com> domain
name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent
registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses a
confusingly similar variation of Complainant’s
mark to bring Internet users to
a commercial website which posts information regarding Talcomp Management
Services. By creating a likelihood of
confusion in the minds of Internet users seeking Complainant’s services, for
the purposes of commercial
gain, Respondent’s activities evidence bad faith use
and registration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Kmart v. Kahn, FA
127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if Respondent profits from
its diversionary use of Complainant's mark when
the domain name resolves to
commercial websites and Respondent fails to contest the Complaint, it may be
concluded that Respondent
is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Drs.
Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000)
(finding bad faith where Respondent directed Internet users seeking
Complainant’s site
to its own website for commercial gain).
The Panel thus
finds that Respondent registered and used the <microtels.com> domain name in bad faith, and that Policy ¶
4(a)(iii) is satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <microtels.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr.
(Ret.), Panelist
Dated:
May 6, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/457.html