Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Campmor, Inc. v. Momm Amed Ia
Claim Number: FA0304000154530
Complainant is
Campmor, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA (“Complainant”) represented
by Kevin R. Haley of Brann & Isaacson. Respondent is Momm
Amed Ia, Kwangju, KOREA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <campmoor.com> registered with Bulkregister.com,
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.
Sandra
Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on April 14, 2003; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on April 17, 2003.
On
April 14, 2003, Bulkregister.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the domain name <campmoor.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
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@campmoor.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
June 2, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra
Franklin 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 <campmoor.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAMPMOR mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <campmoor.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <campmoor.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant
holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) for the CAMPMOR mark (Reg.
No. 1,892,208 registered on May 2, 1995)
in relation to various items of clothing. The mark’s first use in commerce is
recorded as
March 3, 1983. Complainant uses its domain name <campmor.com>
to conduct business throughout the world.
Respondent
registered the <campmoor.com> domain name on July 17, 2000.
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to
<ownbox.com>, a website
that features gambling and hot topic links such
as “sex.”
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
demonstrated its rights in the CAMPMOR mark through registration with the USPTO
and continuous use in commerce since
1983. 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 <campmoor.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because the disputed
domain name incorporates the entire mark and simply
adds an additional letter
“o” to the mark. The addition of the letter “o” does not significantly
differentiate the domain name from
the mark for the purposes of Policy ¶
4(a)(i). See Am. Online Inc. v.
Chinese ICQ Network, D2000-0808 (WIPO Aug. 31, 2000) (finding that the
addition of the numeral 4 in the domain name <4icq.com> does nothing to
deflect the impact on the viewer of the mark ICQ and is therefore confusingly
similar); see also Crédit Lyonnais
v. Ass’n Etre Ensemble, D2000-1426 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (finding that the
addition of the letter “e” and a hyphen does not affect the power of the mark
in
determining confusing similarity).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established.
Respondent has
failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Thus, the Panel accepts all
reasonable inferences and allegations in
the Complaint as true. See Vertical
Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum
July 31, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s failure to respond allows all
reasonable inferences of fact in
the allegations of Complainant to be deemed
true); 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).
Furthermore,
Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances that could demonstrate
Respondent’s rights to or legitimate interests
in the <campmoor.com>
domain name. As Complainant has asserted a prima facie case, the burden
of proof shifts to Respondent to demonstrate its rights to or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name.
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 Woolworths plc. v. Anderson, D2000-1113
(WIPO Oct. 10, 2000) (finding that absent evidence of preparation to use the
domain name for a legitimate purpose, the
burden of proof lies with the
Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests).
Respondent is
using the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to <ownbox.com>,
a commercial, portal website. Respondent’s
use of the <campmoor.com>
domain name to divert Internet traffic to this website is not a bona fide
offering of goods or services with regard to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)
or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use with regard 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).
Moreover,
Respondent has provided the Panel with no proof and there is no evidence in the
record to suggest that Respondent is commonly
known by either CAMPMOOR or <campmoor.com>.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name 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"); see
also Great S. Wood Pres., Inc. v. TFA Assocs., FA 95169 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 5, 2000)
(finding that Respondent was not commonly known by the domain name
<greatsouthernwood.com>
where Respondent linked the domain name to
<bestoftheweb.com>).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established.
Complainant
provides evidence of several similar UDRP disputes in which a party has brought
a domain name dispute against this same
Respondent. The number of disputes
evidences a pattern of registering domain names to prevent the owner of a mark
from reflecting
the mark in a corresponding domain name, which is evidence of
bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Armstrong Holdings, Inc. v. JAZ Assoc.,
FA 95234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that the Respondent violated
Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) by registering multiple domain
names that infringe upon
others’ famous and registered trademarks); see also Gamesville.com, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 95294 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug.
30, 2000) (finding that Respondent engaged in a pattern of conduct of
registering domain names to
prevent the owner of the trademark from reflecting
the mark in a corresponding domain name, which is evidence of registration and
use in bad faith).
Respondent is
using the <campmoor.com> domain name to divert Internet traffic to
a commercial website, <ownbox.com>. The use of a domain name confusingly
similar
to a registered trademark to attract Internet users to a commercial
website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s
mark is
evidence of registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that Respondent registered and used the domain name in
bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent was using the
confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial
website); see also ESPN, Inc. v.
Ballerini, FA 95410 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 15, 2000) (finding bad faith
where Respondent linked the domain name to another website <iwin.com>,
presumably receiving a portion of the advertising revenue from the site by
directing Internet traffic there, thus using a domain
name to attract Internet
users for commercial gain).
The Panel finds
that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <campmoor.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra Franklin, Panelist
Dated:
June 10, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/598.html