Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Carlson Companies Inc. v. Szk.com aka
Michele Dinoia
Claim
Number: FA0306000161568
Complainant is Carlson Companies Inc., Minneapolis,
MN (“Complainant”) represented by Robert
S. Brill, of Carlson Companies Inc. Respondent is Michele Dinoia Szk.com, Pineto, Italy (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <carlsonhotel.com>, registered with Namesecure.Com.
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.
John
J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on June 4, 2003; the Forum
received a hard copy of the Complaint
on June 5, 2003.
On
June 11, 2003, Namesecure.Com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <carlsonhotel.com> is registered with Namesecure.Com and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Namesecure.Com has verified
that Respondent
is bound by the Namesecure.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 11, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
July 1, 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@ carlsonhotel.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 9, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John
J. Upchurch 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 <carlsonhotel.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CARLSON HOTELS WORLDWIDE
mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <carlsonhotel.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <carlsonhotel.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
Carlson Companies, Inc. holds trademark Reg. No. 2,485,545 for the CARLSON
HOTELS WORLDWIDE mark with the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office. Complainant first used the CARLSON HOTELS
WORLDWIDE mark in commerce in 1999.
In addition to
its hotel, motel and resort management operations, Complainant uses the CARLSON
HOTELS WORLDWIDE mark in connection
with other services it provides in the
hospitality industry.
Respondent
registered the <carlsonhotel.com> domain name on April 7,
2003. Respondent is using the disputed
domain name to redirect Internet traffic to a revenue generating search engine
at the <searchport.com>
domain name.
The website located at the <searchport.com> domain name provides
visitors access to its pay-per-click search listings. The website promotes its services by offering its Affiliates
“handsome” pay for directing traffic to its major portal.
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 CARLSON HOTELS WORLDWIDE mark through registration on
the Principal Register with the United
States Patent and Trademark Office and
continuous use in commerce since 1996.
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”); see also Tuxedos By
Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law
rights in a mark where its use was continuous and ongoing, and secondary
meaning was established).
Respondent’s <carlsonhotel.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CARLSON HOTELS WORLDWIDE
mark. Respondent merely added the
letter “s” and the word “worldwide” to Complainant’s entire mark. The Panel finds that Respondent’s domain
name is not sufficiently distinguishable from Complainant’s mark under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass’n v. InterActive Communications, Inc.,
D2000-0788 (WIPO Aug. 28, 2000) (finding that a domain name which merely adds
the letter ‘s’ to Complainant’s mark is sufficiently
similar to the mark to
cause a likelihood of confusion among Internet users); see also Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin)
Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026
(WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute
contains the identical mark of Complainant
combined with a generic word or
term); see also Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. v. Walmarket Canada, D2000-0150 (WIPO May
2, 2000) (finding that the domain name, <walmartcanada.com> is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous
mark).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Respondent has
failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The Panel may accept as true all inferences and allegations submitted
by Complainant. By not submitting a
Response, Respondent has failed to show any evidence, which could demonstrate
that Respondent has any rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name. 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 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).
Respondent is
not commonly known by the <carlsonhotel.com> domain name. The WHOIS contact information does not
indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, Respondent has not been
authorized or licensed to use Complainant’s mark or variations thereof in any
way. See Tercent Inc.
v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in
Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly
known by’
the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)
does not apply); 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).
Respondent is
not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of
goods or services or for a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use. Respondent is using the disputed domain name
to redirect Internet users to a pay-per-click search engine. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the
disputed domain name to attract and redirect Internet traffic to a commercial
website
completely unrelated to Complainant is not a bona fide offering of
goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate
noncommercial or
fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See The Black & Decker Corp. v.
Clinical Evaluations, FA 112629 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2002) (holding
that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users
to
commercial websites, unrelated to Complainant and presumably with the purpose
of earning a commission or pay-per-click referral
fee did not evidence rights
or legitimate interests in the domain name); see
also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha a/k/a Sony Corp. v. Domain
rajadomain@yahoo.com +1.415.0, FA 128701 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 16, 2002)
(finding that Respondent’s use of its domain name in order to divert Internet
users to
a website that offers search engine services was not considered to be
in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services
or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy); see also WeddingChannel.com
Inc. v. Andrey Vasiliev a/k/a NA and Free Domains Parking, FA 156716 (Nat.
Arb. Forum June 12, 2003) (finding that Respondent’s use of the
disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to
Complainant’s mark, websites where Respondent
presumably receives a referral
fee for each misdirected Internet user, was not a bona fide offering of goods
or services as contemplated
by the Policy).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent
registered and is using the <carlsonhotel.com> domain name in bad
faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to attract and then
redirect Internet users to a commercial search engine website has
the
likelihood of creating confusion as to the affiliation and sponsorship of the <carlsonhotel.com>
domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that
Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. See Bank of America Corp. v. Out Island
Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (stating that
“[s]ince the disputed domain names contain entire versions of Complainant’s
marks and are used for something completely unrelated to their descriptive
quality, a consumer searching for Complainant would become
confused as to
Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting search engine website” in holding
that the domain names were registered
and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also 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)).
Accordingly, 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 <carlsonhotel.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch , Panelist
Dated:
July 23, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/759.html