Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
DLJ Long Term Investment Corporation v.
Lauren O'Leary
Claim Number: FA0211000129126
PARTIES
Complainant
is DLJ Long Term Investment Corporation,
Chicago, IL (“Complainant”) represented by James
E. Griffith, of
McDermott, Will & Emery. Respondent
is Lauren O'Leary, New York, NY
(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED
DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <stockscan.org>,
registered with Register.com.
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.
Judge Irving H. Perluss (Retired) is the
Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on November 4, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on November 6, 2002.
On
November 5, 2002, Register.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <stockscan.org> is
registered with Register.com and that the Respondent is the current registrant
of the name. Register.com has verified
that Respondent is bound by the Register.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 7, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”),
setting a deadline
of November 27, 2002 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@stockscan.org by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on November 27, 2002.
Complainant’s
additional submissions were received late on December 3, 2002.
On December 11, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request
to have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Judge Irving H.
Perluss (Retired) as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
1.
Since March
1997, Complainant, its predecessors, and its licensees have adopted and
continually used the mark STOCKSCAN in commerce
in connection with the services
listed in the Certificate of Registration, namely, “providing financial
information, and providing
access information and tools to asset investors in
the selection of securities and investments via a global computer information
network.”
2.
As a result
of Complainant’s widespread, long-time, continuous, and prominent use, the
STOCKSCAN mark has acquired significant goodwill
and wide public recognition
within its field as a means by which Complainant and its services are known to
the public and their source
and origin are identified.
3.
The service
mark STOCKSCAN was registered on August 1, 2000, with the United States Patent
and Trademark Office and is a valid, subsisting,
and uncancelled registration,
of which Complainant is the owner. The
application for the service mark was filed on June 10, 1997.
4.
The
disputed domain name <stockscan.org> is identical to and
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s STOCKSCAN mark in the financial
services field.
5.
Respondent
does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name
because she is not using the disputed domain
name in connection with a bona
fide offering of goods or services under the STOCKSCAN mark, but is passively
holding the name. Respondent has owned
the disputed domain name for over two years, but has never used the name in
connection with any active website.
6.
There is no
evidence of any use of the mark STOCKSCAN anywhere on Respondent’s web
page. Respondent does not offer any
goods or services under the STOCKSCAN trademark. Nor is Respondent known as STOCKSCAN, either as a business,
individual, or other organization.
7.
A consumer
who enters <stockscan.org> into a web browser does not even access
a website operated by Registrant.
Rather, Respondent is instead linked to the generic <register.com>
website. Respondent is not making a
legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Rather, Respondent is squatting on the
domain name corresponding to Complainant’s distinctive STOCKSCAN service mark
and preventing
the name’s legitimate use by the owner of the corresponding
trademark.
8.
Respondent
also is soliciting bids for the domain name in connection with the <stockscan.org>
website, further evidencing Respondent’s lack of any rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name.
9.
Respondent
registered the disputed domain name in bad faith because she knew, or should
have known, that the disputed domain name
was identical to a registered
trademark. Nevertheless, she proceeded
to register the domain name demonstrating bad faith.
10. Respondent has no legitimate interest in
the disputed domain name. She passively
sits on the name, seeking to sell the registration through the solicitation of
offers on the linked website.
Respondent’s actions injure Complainant through the wrongful
appropriation of the disputed domain name corresponding to Complainant’s
service mark.
B. Respondent
1.
Respondent
concedes that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s service
mark, STOCKSCAN.
2.
Respondent
denies, however, that she registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of
Complainant’s STOCKSCAN mark. To the
contrary, until served with Complainant’s Complaint, Respondent was unaware of
Complainant’s STOCKSCAN mark.
3.
Respondent
denies that by registering the disputed domain name she has created a
likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship,
affiliation, or
endorsement of Respondent’s website. To
the contrary, the term “stockscan” is commonly usually used in the investment
and trading community to describe a method by which
stocks and other securities
are evaluated for investment purposes.
Moreover, the term “stockscan” is generic and not uniquely associated
with Complainant. In addition, the term
“stockscan” also is used outside the investment community.
4.
Respondent
has rights and a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name because she is
a securities trader who registered the
disputed domain name on February 23,
2000, with the intention of utilizing the name in connection with her
business. She is not currently using
the disputed domain name as a result of the ongoing economic and securities
market downturn, but intends
to do so in the future once economic and
securities market conditions improve.
5.
Respondent
denies that she is soliciting bids for the <stockscan.org> domain
name registration or that she has ever offered to sell the disputed domain name
registration to Complainant or to Complainant’s
competitors. To the extent that the <register.com>
website implies or suggests that the disputed domain name is for sale, such
offer of sale
was made or is being made without Respondent’s knowledge or
permission. Respondent has no intention
of selling the disputed domain name registration inasmuch as she intends to
utilize the name in connection
with her business once economic and securities
market conditions improve.
C. Additional Submission by Complainant
1.
Respondent
admits that she has never used the trademark STOCKSCAN and offers no evidence
that she is known as or does business under
the STOCKSCAN trade name.
2.
Respondent
asserts that although she has held the disputed domain name for over two and a
half years, “the on-going economic and securities
market downturn” has
prevented her from exploiting the disputed domain name.
3.
She
contends that her registration was not in bad faith because she has a
continuing intention of eventually one day using the domain
name in connection
with her securities trading business, a use which is entirely encompassed in
Complainant’s federal registration
for the STOCKSCAN mark. Respondent had no interest in the STOCKSCAN
mark or trade name in the financial services field prior to the effective date
of Complainant’s
registration, June 10, 1997.
4.
The passive
holding of a domain name consisting of the trademark of another constitutes bad
faith. This is particularly so in light
of Respondent’s operations as a securities trader in the same field as
Complainant, and Respondent’s
intention to use the domain name in a manner that
will infringe Complainant’s trademark rights.
5.
Respondent
further contends that her registration was not in bad faith because she was
ignorant of Complainant’s registered mark in
the financial services field. Under 15 U.S.C. Section 1091, Respondent is
charged with constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STOCKSCAN
mark as of
the date of registration.
6.
Respondent
asserts that the term STOCKSCAN “is generic and not uniquely associated with
Complainant.” In support of this
contention, Respondent lists several web addresses that purport to show use of
the term to describe “a method by
which stocks and other securities are
evaluated for investment purposes.”
Each of these domain names are being used in a non-trademark manner or
there is an agreement with Complainant for the trademark usage.
7.
The
disputed domain name does not appear in any dictionary nor does it have any
characteristics of a generic term.
8.
In any
event, Complainant is under no obligation to pursue all infringement matters at
once, although it has been diligent, as a matter
of policy, in protecting its
trademark rights in the STOCKSCAN mark and other marks both through litigation
and arbitration.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”
Paragraph
4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which the Complainant
has rights;
(2)
the
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.
This element has been conceded by Respondent.
As will be seen, the Panel has found that Respondent
registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. It follows, accordingly, that she has no
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
There are two basic justifications urged
by Respondent for her registration and use in good faith of the disputed domain
name.
The first is that the disputed domain
name is generic. If it were, Professor
McCarthy teaches us:
“The concepts of ‘generic name’ and
‘trademark’ are mutually exclusive.
Thus, if, in fact, a given term is ‘generic,’ it can never function as a
mark to identify and distinguish the products of only one
seller.” (2 McCarthy (4th ed. Updated
6/2002) p. 12-15, Trademarks and Unfair Competition.)
The difficulty confronting Respondent is
that she must carry the burden of producing “sufficient evidence” of
genericness. (2 McCarthy, supra,
p. 12-29.) This is because “. . . if
the trademark owner has a federal registration, it constitutes a strong
presumption that the term is not
generic . . .”. (Ibid.)
While Respondent has tried, in the
Panel’s opinion she has not carried her burden. See Surgicenters of Am., Inc. v. Medical Dental Surgeries Co.,
[1979] USCA9 890; 601 F.2d 1011 (9th Cir. 1979) (particularly Judge Goodwin’s dissent
at 1020, relating to the requirements of proof of genericness).
While there appears to be some generic use
by Complainant’s competitors, the use further has been challenged by
Complainant or it
was licensed or explained.
There is no dictionary definition of the term “stockscan.” Respondent has not presented any evidence of
media usage, testimony of persons in the trade or consumer surveys, all of
which would
have been useful in the Panel’s determination of the factual
genericness issue.
Respondent’s second justification of its
registration and use of the disputed domain name in good faith is that she was
not aware
of Complainant’s registration of its mark.[1]
The justification, however, is not
sufficient because Respondent had constructive, if not actual, notice of
Complainant’s registered
mark.
In Pink, The Internet & E-Commerce
Legal Handbook (2001) 211, prospective domain name registrants are
admonished:
“Conduct a thorough search before
selecting your trademark and domain name.
There is a significant exposure to liability if you use a domain name or
trademark that is confusingly similar to another’s trademark. The best practice is to conduct a thorough
search, have that search reviewed by counsel, and pick a name for which you
have secured
clearance. If the domain
name is not available, then you should consider acquiring that name.” (Emphasis in original.)
Indeed, there is a legal presumption of bad faith, when
Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s trademark,
actually
or constructively.
In Interstellar Starship Services, Ltd. v. Epix,
Inc.,
[1999] USCA9 357; 184 F.3d 1107, 1111 (CA 9th 1999), it was said:
“However, ISS became aware of the ‘EPIX’
trademark when it applied for its own registration of ‘EPIX.’ Adopting a designation with knowledge of its
trademark status permits a presumption of intent to deceive. See Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1059
(citing Official Airline Guides, Inc. v.
Goss, [1993] USCA9 3170; 6 F.3d 1385 (9th Cir. 1993)). In turn, intent to deceive is strong evidence of a likelihood of
confusion. Sleekcraft, 550 F.2d
at 354.”
Thus, the domain name in issue was
registered in bad faith. Respondent,
however, apparently argues that she actually has not used the domain
name in issue in bad faith because of the declined stock market and,
accordingly, the name could not have been used in
“bad faith.”
The Panel heretofore has determined that
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name, and that it
has registered
the name in bad faith.
It makes no sense whatsoever to wait until it actually “uses” the name,
when inevitably, when there is such use, it will create the
confusion described
in the Policy.
Under similar circumstances, a
preliminary, mandatory injunction was granted by a federal court requiring the
transfer of a domain
name even though a website had not yet been opened. Green Prods. Co. v. Independence By-Products
Co., 992 F.Supp. 1070 (N.D. Iowa 1997). The threatened harm is “use.”
See Phat Fashions v. Kruger, FA 96193 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Dec. 29,
2000); Bloomberg LP v. Peter Schorsch, FA 96576 (Nat. Arb. Forum,
Mar. 19, 2001); Hungry Minds, Inc. v. Mall for Dummies, FA 96635 (Nat. Arb.
Forum, April 4, 2001).
In any event, there is “use” because
Respondent has “passively held” the disputed domain name since its
registration. See Clerical Med. Inv.
Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding
that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute
use in
bad faith); see also DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp.,
D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that Respondent’s passive holding of
the domain name satisfies the requirement of
¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja,
Kil, D2000-1049 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that bad faith registration
and use where it is “inconceivable that the Respondent could
make any active
use of the disputed domain names without creating a false impression of
association with the Complainant”).
The Panel finds and determines,
accordingly, that Respondent registered and used the domain name in issue in
bad faith.
DECISION
Based on the above findings and conclusions and pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(i), it is decided that the domain name <stockscan.org>
registered by Respondent, Lauren O’Leary, shall be and the same is TRANSFERRED
to Complainant, DLJ Long Term Investment Corporation.
JUDGE IRVING H. PERLUSS (Retired), Panelist
Dated: January 14, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/48.html