Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Lenson Realty, Inc. v. Javad aka James
Banaeian
Claim
Number: FA0304000153544
Complainant is
Lenson Realty, Inc., Boca Raton, FL (“Complainant”) represented
by Rachelle R. McBride, of Sachs, Sax & Klein. Respondent is
James Banaeian, Boca Raton, FL (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <lensonrealty.com>, registered with Domaindiscover.
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.
Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on April 1, 2003; the Forum
received a hard copy of the
Complaint on April 3, 2003.
On
April 7, 2003, Domaindiscover confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <lensonrealty.com> is registered with Domaindiscover and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Domaindiscover has verified
that Respondent
is bound by the Domaindiscover 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
April 8, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
April 28, 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@lensonrealty.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 5, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a
single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., 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 <lensonrealty.com>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s LENSON REALTY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <lensonrealty.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <lensonrealty.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
Lenson Realty, Inc., has existed as a Florida corporation since 1997. Complainant’s owner, Mark Lenson, is a
licensed real estate broker. Mr. Lenson
does all of his real estate business under the corporate name Lenson Realty,
Inc.
Respondent,
James Banaeian, registered the <lensonrealty.com> domain name on
June 26, 2002. A former sales agent of
Complainant, Respondent left his employment with Complainant in March of
2002. Respondent is currently making no
use of the domain name other than to attempt to sell its registration at <buydomains.com>.
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 that it has rights in the LENSON REALTY mark through continuous use
since 1997 in relation to its real
estate broker services.
Respondent’s
<lensonrealty.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s LENSON
REALTY mark because it incorporates Complainant’s entire mark and merely adds
the top-level domain “.com.” The
addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when determining whether a domain
name is identical or confusingly similar pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000)
(finding <pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s mark because the
generic top-level domain
(gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not
relevant); see also Rollerblade,
Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top
level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain
name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly
similar).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Respondent
has failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Thus, the Panel is permitted to accept all reasonable allegations
and inferences in the Complaint as true.
See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA
95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (failure to respond allows all reasonable
inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant
to be deemed true); see
also 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”).
Moreover,
Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances that could demonstrate rights
and legitimate interests in the domain name.
When Complainant asserts a prima facie case against Respondent,
the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to show that it has rights or
legitimate interests pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). 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 Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp.,
D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the
Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance
that could demonstrate any
rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).
Respondent is
making no use of the <lensonrealty.com> domain name. Respondent is currently using the domain
name to divert Internet users to <buydomains.com>, where the <lensonrealty.com>
domain name registration is offered for sale.
The sale of a domain name registration is not a bona fide offering of
goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it 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); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. High Performance
Networks, Inc., FA 95083 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (finding no rights
or legitimate interests where Respondent registered the domain name
with the
intention of selling its rights).
Moreover, as a
past employee of Complainant, Respondent was on notice of Complainant’s rights,
as well as Respondent’s own lack of
rights in the <lensonrealty.com>
domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(c)(ii).
See Vinidex Pty. Ltd. v. Auinger, AF-0402 (eResolution
Oct. 18, 2000) (finding that as a former employee, Respondent knew or should
have known Complainant’s mark
was in use as an integral part of the corporate
name and as a trademark and that the Respondent understood the legitimate
interests
and rights of Complainant and, by contrast, its own lack of interest
or right. This is sufficient for
Complainant to establish that Respondent had no rights or interest in the
domain name); see also Compagnie
de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000)
(finding no rights or legitimate interest where Respondent was not commonly
known by the mark and
never applied for a license or permission from
Complainant to use the trademarked name).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
As a former
employee of Complainant, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s
rights in the LENSON REALTY mark when it registered
the <lensonrealty.com>
domain name. Registration of an
infringing domain name, despite actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights, is
evidence of bad faith. Thus, the Panel
finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. See Arab Bank for Inv. & Foreign Trade v. Akkou, D2000-1399 (WIPO
Dec. 19, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use where Respondent was
employed by Complainant’s business,
was fully aware of the name of her
employer, and made no use of the infringing domain name); see also Savino
Del Bene Inc. v. Gennari,
D2000-1133 (WIPO Dec. 12, 2000) (finding "Respondent's registration of the
company name of his former employer as a domain
name is an act of bad
faith").
Respondent is making no use of the disputed domain name other than
attempting to sell the domain name registration at <buydomains.com>. Registering a domain name for the primary
purpose of selling, renting, or leasing its registration is evidence of bad
faith registration
and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Am. Online, Inc. v.
Avrasya Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd.,
FA 93679 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent
offered domain names for sale); see also Wrenchead.com, Inc. v. Hammersla, D2000-1222 (WIPO Dec. 12, 2000)
(finding that offering the domain name for sale at an auction site is evidence
of bad faith registration
and use).
Thus, the Panel
finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <lensonrealty.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated:
May 12, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/479.html