Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Avidweb Technologies Inc. v. Gary Upah
Claim Number: FA0304000155467
Complainant is Avidweb Technologies Inc., Naperville, IL (“Complainant”), of Avidweb Technologies Inc. Respondent
is Gary Upah, Stilwell, KS
(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <jobbex.net>
and <jobbex.biz>, registered
with Network Solutions, Inc.
The
undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially
and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known
conflict in serving as
Panelist in this proceeding.
Judge
Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on April 24, 2003; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on April 28, 2003.
On
April 28, 2003, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the domain names <jobbex.net>
and < jobbex.biz> are
registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that 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
April 28, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
May 19, 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@jobbex.net and postmaster@jobbex.biz 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 28, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Judge
Harold Kalina (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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <jobbex.net> and <jobbex.biz>
domain names are identical to Complainant’s JOBBEX mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <jobbex.net>
and < jobbex.biz> domain
names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <jobbex.net> and <jobbex.biz> domain names in bad
faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
Avidweb Technologies, Inc., holds a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
registration for JOBBEX (Reg. No. 2,576,300),
registered on the Principal
Register on June 4, 2002. Complainant’s USPTO registration indicates first use
of the JOBBEX mark commenced
in November 2000. Complainant’s registration
denotes “Computer software for posting jobs, storing candidates’ resumes and
storing
employers’ records for the human resources industry.”
Respondent, Gary
Upah, registered the <jobbex.net> and
<jobbex.biz> domain names on
April 4, 2003. Complainant’s investigation of Respondent’s use of the subject
domain names reveals that they are used
to offer goods and services (a group of
Internet job boards and recruiting services) in competition with Complainant’s
offerings.
Complainant’s
submission indicates that Respondent desired to enter into a business
relationship with Complainant, but the partnership
never came to fruition.
Subsequent to this failure, Respondent registered the disputed domain
names.
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 JOBBEX mark through registration with the USPTO and
continuous use of the mark in commerce
since 2000. See The Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Brian Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Sept. 16 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a
presumption that they are inherently
distinctive and have acquired secondary
meaning”).
Respondent’s <jobbex.net> and <jobbex.biz> domain names are
identical to Complainant’s JOBBEX mark. Respondent’s domain names incorporate
Complainant’s mark in its entirety,
and only deviate by the addition of the
top-level domains (“TLD”) “.net” and “.biz.” Because top-level domains are a
required feature
in a domain name, their presence is not relevant when
conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) “identical” analysis. See 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); see
also U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Examination
Guide No. 2-99, "Marks Composed, in
Whole or in Part, of Domain Names," Section I (Sept. 29, 1999)
(“When a trademark, service
mark, collective mark or certification mark is
composed, in whole or in part, of a domain name, neither the beginning of the
URL
(http://www.) nor the TLD have any source indicating significance. Instead,
those designations are merely devices that every Internet
site provider must
use as part of its address"); see
also Princeton Linear Assoc.,
Inc. v. Copland o/b/o LAN Solutions Inc. FA 102811 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 8,
2001) (finding that the “.biz” TLD in the disputed domain name is not a factor
and hence to be
ignored, in determining whether a disputed domain name is
identical to the mark in which Complainant asserts rights).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Respondent failed to contest Complainant’s assertion that Respondent lacks
rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain
names. Because
Complainant’s evidence and arguments are unopposed, the Panel is permitted to
accept all reasonable inferences made
in the Complaint as true. See 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”);
see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB,
D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a
presumption that Complainant’s allegations are true unless
clearly contradicted
by the evidence).
Additionally, Complainant has submitted a prima facie case to the Panel, thereby shifting the burden to
Respondent. Respondent’s failure to fulfill its burden means that Respondent
has
failed to invoke any circumstances that could demonstrate rights or
legitimate interests in the domain names. See
Parfums
Christian Dior v. QTR Corp.,
D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a Response,
Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which
could demonstrate any
rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also 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 in
respect of the domain name,
the burden shifts to Respondent to provide credible evidence that substantiates
its claim of rights and
legitimate interests in the domain name).
Complainant asserts unrefuted circumstances that indicate Respondent
registered the subject domain names in response to a failed business
agreement
between it and Complainant. Moreover, Respondent’s domain names resolve to a
website that offers services that compete
with Complainant’s products and
related services. Because
Respondent’s sole purpose in selecting the domain names was to cause confusion
with Complainant’s JOBBEX mark, its use of
the domain names is not a bona fide
offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor does it constitute
any other fair use
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See 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); see
also Am.
Online, Inc. v. Tencent Comm. Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21,
2000) (finding that use of Complainant’s mark “as a portal to suck surfers into
a site sponsored
by Respondent hardly seems legitimate”).
Respondent is
not authorized or licensed by Complainant to make use of the JOBBEX mark in the
domain names. Evidence reveals that
Respondent’s infringing domain names were
registered as retribution for Complainant terminating Respondent’s proposed
business arrangement.
No evidence before the Panel suggests Respondent is
commonly known by the <jobbex.net>
or <jobbex.biz> domain
names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). There is a presumption that Respondent is not
commonly known by domain names that are identical
to another’s registered mark,
and no evidence has rebutted that presumption in the current dispute. 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"); 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 stated,
Respondent’s motivation to register the infringing domain names was an
attempted business relationship with Complainant,
which failed. Circumstances
indicate that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s rights in the JOBBEX mark
because it was seeking
copyright-protected JOBBEX software for its web
development business. Further, Complainant’s JOBBEX trademark was registered on
the
USPTO’s Principal Register when Respondent registered the subject domain
names, a status imputing knowledge on those seeking to register
identical or confusingly
similar variations of the mark. Therefore, Respondent’s decision to register
the infringing domain names,
despite knowledge of Complainant’s rights,
constitutes bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith,
[2002] USCA9 115; 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002)
(finding that "[w]here an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be
similar to another, one can
infer an intent to confuse"); see also Victoria’s
Cyber Secret Ltd. P’ship v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 161 F.Supp.2d 1339, 1349 (S.D.Fla. 2001) (noting that “a
Principal Register registration [of a trademark or service mark] is
constructive
notice of a claim of ownership so as to eliminate any defense of
good faith adoption” pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1072); 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).
Respondent used
the <jobbex.net> and <jobbex.biz> domain names in bad
faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Specifically, uncontested evidence
indicates that the subject domain names
are used in connection with
Respondent’s business. Thus, the Panel infers that Respondent commercially
benefits from its use of Complainant’s
JOBBEX mark in the domain names. 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 Am. Online, Inc. v.
Tencent Comm. Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad
faith where Respondent registered and used an infringing domain name to attract
users to a website sponsored by Respondent).
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 <jobbex.net>
and <jobbex.biz> domain names
be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to
Complainant.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
Dated:
June 2, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/557.html