Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Crown Awards Inc. v. Rizwanali a/k/a
Rizwanali Khalfan
Claim Number: FA0305000157294
Complainant is
Crown Awards, Inc., Hawthorne, NY (“Complainant”) represented
by John C. Re of Aronauer Goldfarb Sills & Re, LLP. Respondent
is Rizwanali a/k/a Rizwanali Khalfan, Syosset, NY (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <crownaward.com> registered with Go
Daddy Software, 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.
James
A. Crary as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on May 12, 2003; the Forum
received a hard copy of the Complaint
on May 13, 2003.
On
May 12, 2003, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <crownaward.com> is registered with Go Daddy Software,
Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Go Daddy
Software, Inc. has
verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software,
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
May 19, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
June 9, 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@crownaward.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 16, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James
A. Crary 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 <crownaward.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CROWN AWARDS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <crownaward.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <crownaward.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 CROWN AWARDS mark
(Reg. No. 2,586,186 registered on
June 25, 2002) in relation to mail-order retailing services and electronic
retailing services via
computers, featuring trophies, medals, plaques, ribbons,
awards and personalized desk sets. Complainant and its affiliated company,
Crown Trophy, Inc., have been actively operating a trophy and awards business
under the CROWN TROPHY mark since 1984 and the CROWN
AWARDS mark since 2000.
Complainant has operated a website at <crownawards.com> since March 7,
2000 in connection with Complainant’s
trophy and awards business.
Respondent
registered the <crownaward.com> domain name on October 6, 2002.
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet traffic to
<award-usa.com>,
a website that offers products and services in direct
competition with Complainant’s products and services.
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 CROWN AWARDS mark through registration
with the USPTO and continuous use in
commerce since 2000.
Respondent’s <crownaward.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CROWN AWARDS mark because
the disputed domain name appropriates Complainant’s
mark and merely omits the
letter “s” from the end of the mark. The omission of the letter “s” does not
significantly differentiate
the domain name from the mark for purposes of
analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because Complainant’s mark remains the dominant
element
of the domain name. See
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. HarperStephens, D2000-0716 (WIPO Sept. 5,
2000) (finding that deleting the letter “s” from the 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 Victoria's Secret v. Internet Inv. Firm
Trust, FA 94344 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 9, 2000)
(finding the domain name <victoriasecret.com> to be confusingly similar
to Complainant’s
trademark, VICTORIA’S SECRET).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established.
Respondent has
failed to favor the Panel with a Response in this proceeding. Therefore, the
Panel may accept all reasonable allegations
and inferences 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).
Moreover, due to
Respondent’s failure to answer the allegations in the Complaint, the Panel
presumes that Respondent lacks any rights
to or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326
(WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the domain name because the Respondent
never submitted a response
or provided the Panel with evidence to suggest otherwise); see also BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v. Tweed, D2000-0418 (WIPO June 20, 2000) (“By
not submitting a response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance
which could demonstrate,
pursuant to ¶ 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or
legitimate interests in the domain name”).
Respondent is
using the <crownaward.com> domain name to redirect Internet
traffic to a website offering products and services that directly compete with
Complainant’s. Respondent’s
use of the disputed domain name is neither a bona
fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate
noncommercial
or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374
(WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that “[I]t would be unconscionable to find a bona
fide offering of services in a respondent’s
operation of web-site using a
domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and for the
same business”); see also
Ticketmaster Corp. v. DiscoverNet, Inc., D2001-0252 (WIPO Apr. 9, 2001)
(finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent generated
commercial gain by intentionally
and misleadingly diverting users away from
Complainant's site to a competing website).
Furthermore,
Respondent has presented no proof and there is no evidence in the record that
indicates that Respondent is commonly known
by CROWN AWARD or <crownaward.com>.
Therefore, Respondent has failed to establish that it has any rights to or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain with regard
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 Gallup
Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001)
(finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent
is not known
by the mark).
The
Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent registered and is using the <crownaward.com>
domain name to compete in the same market as Complainant. The registration and
use of a domain name confusingly similar to a competitor’s
mark suggests that
Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting
the business of a competitor, which
is evidence of bad faith registration and
use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385
(Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding that the minor degree of variation from
the Complainant's marks suggests that
Respondent, Complainant’s competitor,
registered the names primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant's
business); see also Surface
Protection Indus., Inc. v. Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001)
(finding that, given the competitive relationship between Complainant and
Respondent, Respondent
likely registered the contested domain name with the
intent to disrupt Complainant's business and create user confusion).
Moreover,
Respondent’s registration and commercial use of a domain name confusingly
similar to Complainant’s mark indicates that Respondent
registered the <crownaward.com>
domain name to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website for commercial
gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s
mark, which
evidences registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet, Inc.,
D2000-0127 WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent attempted to
attract customers to its website, <efitnesswholesale.com>,
and created
confusion by offering similar products for sale as Complainant); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Carroll, FA
97035 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 14, 2001) (finding bad faith where Respondent used
the domain name, for commercial gain, to intentionally
attract users to a
direct competitor of Complainant).
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 <crownaward.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Crary, Panelist
Dated:
July 1, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/676.html