Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Mervyn's Brands, Inc. v. Peter Carrington
a/k/a Party Night, Inc.
Claim
Number: FA0306000161275
Complainant is Mervyn's Brands, Inc., Minneapolis,
MN, USA (“Complainant”) represented by Eunice
P. de Carvalho, of Faegre & Benson LLP. Respondent is Peter Carrington a/k/a Party Night, Inc., Amsterdam,
NETHERLANDS (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <mervynes.com>, registered with Key-Systems
Gmbh d/b/a Domaindiscount24.Com.
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.
Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on May 30, 2003; the Forum
received a hard copy of the Complaint
on June 2, 2003.
On
June 5, 2003, Key-Systems Gmbh d/b/a Domaindiscount24.Com confirmed by e-mail
to the Forum that the domain name <mervynes.com> is registered
with Key-Systems Gmbh d/b/a Domaindiscount24.Com and that Respondent is the
current registrant of the name. Key-Systems
Gmbh d/b/a Domaindiscount24.Com has
verified that Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems Gmbh d/b/a
Domaindiscount24.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
June 5, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
June 25, 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@mervynes.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
July 1, 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 <mervynes.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MERVYN’S mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <mervynes.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <mervynes.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant uses
the MERVYN’S mark in relation to its retail department store services. Complainant holds numerous valid
registrations for the MERVYN’S mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
including, Reg. No.
1,063,553 (registered April 12, 1977).
Complainant also
operates an informational and on-line shopping site at <mervyns.com> that
markets the same products as its
retail department stores.
Respondent
registered the disputed domain name on May 5, 2002. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet
traffic to <hanky-panky-college.com>, an adult oriented website.
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 MERVYN’S mark through registration with
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
and through use of the mark in commerce.
Respondent’s <mervynes.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MERVYN’S mark because it
merely misspells the mark by replacing the apostrophe
between the last two
letters of the mark with an “e”.
Respondent is taking advantage of a common spelling error by Internet
users when they are attempting to access Complainant’s website. Complainant’s MERVYN’S mark is the dominant
element of the disputed domain name; therefore, Respondent’s <mervynes.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. The fact that the disputed domain name does
not include the mark’s apostrophe is not sufficient to distinguish it from
Complainant’s
mark. See TM
Acquisition Corp. v. Peter Carrington, FA 124850 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 4,
2002) (finding that <centurey21.com> was confusingly similar to the
CENTURY 21 mark because
Respondent misspelled the mark by merely adding an “e”
between the last two letters of the mark); see also Chi-Chi’s Inc. v. Rest. Commentary, D2000-0321 (WIPO June 29, 2000)
(finding the domain name <chichis.com> to be identical to Complainant’s
CHI-CHI’S mark, despite
the omission of the apostrophe and hyphen from the
mark).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant
urges that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name. Respondent did not provide
the Panel with a Response in this proceeding.
Thus, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations and inferences in
the Complaint as true. See
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Bavarian AG, FA 110830 (Nat. Arb. Forum June
17, 2002) (finding that in the absence of a Response the Panel is free to make
inferences from the
very failure to respond and assign greater weight to
certain circumstances than it might otherwise do); 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 dispute the allegations in the Complaint, the Panel may
presume that Respondent lacks rights
to or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
See Pavillion Agency, Inc.
v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that
Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have
no
legitimate interest in the domain names); see also Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. D3M
Virtual Reality Inc., AF-0336 (eResolution Sept. 23, 2000) (finding no
rights or legitimate interests where no such right or interest was immediately
apparent to the Panel and Respondent did not come forward to suggest any right
or interest it may have possessed).
Respondent is
using the <mervynes.com> domain name, a simple misspelling of
Complainant’s mark, to redirect Internet traffic to an adult oriented
website. This use is neither a bona
fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a
legitimate noncommercial or fair
use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See MatchNet plc v. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000)
(finding that it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services to use a
domain name for commercial
gain by attracting Internet users to third party
sites offering sexually explicit and pornographic material, where such use is
calculated
to mislead consumers and tarnish the Complainant’s mark); see
also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v.
Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that infringing on
another's well-known mark to provide a link to a pornographic
site is not a
legitimate or fair use).
In addition,
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and the evidence fails to
establish that Respondent is authorized or licensed
to register or use domain
names or marks containing the MERVYN’S mark.
The WHOIS information for the <mervynes.com> domain name
indicates Respondent, Peter Carrington
a/k/a Party Night, Inc., as
the registrant; however, it fails to establish Respondent as an “individual,
business, or other organazation” commonly known
by the <mervynes.com>
domain name. Therefore, Respondent has
no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See 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); see also MRA
Holding, LLC v. Costnet, FA 140454 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2003) (noting
that “the
disputed domain name does not even correctly spell a cognizable phrase” in
finding that Respondent was not “commonly known by”
the name GIRLS GON WILD or <girlsgonwild.com>).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established.
It can be
inferred that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s MERVYN’S mark when it
registered the disputed domain name because
the domain name is merely a
misspelling of Complainant’s mark.
Registration of a domain name, despite knowledge of Complainant’s
rights, is evidence of bad faith registration pursuant to 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 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).
Furthermore,
Respondent registered the <mervynes.com> domain name and linked it
to an adult oriented website. The use
of a domain name confusingly similar to a registered mark to divert Internet
traffic to a website with sexually explicit content
is itself evidence of bad
faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See
Youtv, Inc. v. Alemdar, FA 94243
(Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent attracted
users to his website for commercial gain
and linked his website to pornographic
websites); see also Ty, Inc. v.
O.Z. Names, D2000-0370 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding that absent contrary
evidence, linking the domain names in question to graphic, adult-oriented
websites is evidence of bad faith).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established.
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <mervynes.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated:
July 14, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/726.html