Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Warner Health Care, Inc. v. Peter
Carrington a/k/a Party Night Inc.
Claim Number: FA0307000169084
PARTIES
Complainant
is Warner Health Care, Inc.,
Cincinnati, OH, USA (“Complainant”) represented by Sean F. Heneghan. Respondent is
Peter Carrington a/k/a Party Night Inc., Amsterdam,
NETHERLANDS (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <avlimill.com>, <avlmil.com>, <avimil.com>, <avilimil.com> and <avlomil.com>, registered with Key-Systems Gmbh.
PANEL
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.
P.
Jay Hines as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on July 16, 2003; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on July 21, 2003.
On
July 24, 2003, Key-Systems Gmbh confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain names <avlimill.com>, <avlmil.com>, <avimil.com>, <avilimil.com> and <avlomil.com> are registered with Key-Systems Gmbh and that
the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Key-Systems Gmbh has
verified
that Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems Gmbh 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
July 25, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of August 14,
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@avlimill.com, postmaster@avlmil.com, postmaster@avimil.com,
postmaster@avilimil.com and postmaster@avlomil.com
by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 14, 2003.
Complainant’s
Additional Submission was received and determined to be in accordance with
Forum Supplemental Rule #7 on August 19,
2003.
Respondent submitted an informal Additional Submission
that did not comply with Forum Supplemental Rule #7 on August 20, 2003. The
Panel has chosen to consider this deficient submission in reaching its decision
in this dispute.
On September 3, 2003, pursuant to Complainant’s request
to have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed P. Jay Hines as
Panelist.
On September 11, 2003, the Panelist, after determining
that the submissions from both parties were inadequate for a proper decision
to
be rendered in this matter, issued a procedural order which the Forum forwarded
to the parties, requesting further submissions
by September 18, 2003,
specifically:
1.
Evidence and documents supporting Complainant’s first use of the
trademark in which it asserts it has rights; and
2.
Evidence and documents concerning Respondent’s legitimate interest in the
disputed domain names, including plans/consultations to
prepare to sell goods
over the Internet under the contested domain names.
In response to the procedural order, Complainant
provided a further submission on September 18, 2003. Respondent did not provide any additional submissions.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
Complainant
claims ownership and use of the trademark AVLIMIL in connection with
non-hormonal, non-synthetic tablets for female sexual
dysfunction. Complainant is the owner of pending U.S.
Application Serial No. 78/218,506, filed February 25, 2003, for the mark
AVLIMIL for “herbal
formulation” and which claims use in commerce since as
early as December 15, 2002.
Complainant
asserts that the subject domain names were intentionally registered as slight
misspellings of Complainant’s AVLIMIL mark
and that Respondent is a serial “typosquatter” in that he has registered domain
names comprised of misspellings of the trademarks of others, including Sallie
Mae,
Yahoo!, Boston Herald, Banana Republic, Pottery Barn, Bank of America, and
Embassy Suites, and has been a party to 20 some recent
UDRP decisions.
Complainant
contends that since December 2002 it has invested over $5 million in
advertising and promoting its goods under the AVLIMIL
mark in popular magazines
such as “Biography,” “Better Homes and Gardens”, “Cosmopolitan” and “Working
Mother.” It has also invested in television
ad campaigns on cable television stations, on targeted television shows and on
local network channels. Complainant
operates an interactive website through which orders may be placed for the
products.
Complainant
contends that Respondent is using the subject domain names to misdirect
Internet users to a web site that features a “pay-per-click”
search engine,
pop-up ads and links to commercial services including <MP3Messenger.com>
and <worldonlinegames.tv>.
Complainant contends that such usage does not constitute a bona fide
offering of goods or services as contemplated by Paragraph 4(c)(i)
of the
Policy.
Complainant
asserts that Respondent’s registration and use of the subject domain names
amounts to bad faith because its sole purpose
is to defer Internet traffic away
from Complainant’s <avlimil.com> domain name for Respondent’s own
commercial gain.
On
April 2, 2003, Complainant’s counsel sent a cease and desist letter to
Respondent both via registered mail and e-mail. The registered mail letter was returned.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
contends that Complainant stole his idea to market a similar product with the
name AVLIMILL and that Complainant is engaging
in reverse domain name
hijacking. Respondent contends that
Internet users that access the subject web sites are not inundated with pop-up
ads. Respondent argues that each domain
name case must be considered in its own right and that any prior decisions to
which he is a party
have no bearing on this matter.
Respondent
contends that he created the <avlimill.com> domain name from the
terms “avlim” and “ill,” bearing a constructive meaning of “compounds to cure
illness.” Respondent contends that he
registered the additional four domains as a defense to having similar domain
names registered by others. He contends
that these four additional domain names were not available with the double “l”
ending.
Respondent
claims that the most important fact is that all of his domain name
registrations occurred before the filing of Complainant’s
U.S. trademark
application. Respondent further
contends that Complainant did not demonstrate established rights by showing use
of the AVLIMIL mark as early as
December 15, 2002. Respondent concludes with the statement that he had no knowledge
of the existence of Complainant when the domain names were registered
on
January 24, 2003.
A.
Complainant’s Additional Submissions
Initially,
Complainant points out that Respondent’s filing is neither signed nor certified
according to the rules. Complainant
also notes that the hard copy of the Complaint mailed to Respondent was
returned with addressee designated unknown.
Complainant argues that this is additional evidence of bad faith domain
name registration because of the provision of false information.
Complainant
notes that it registered the <avlimil.com>
domain name on September 16, 2002 in preparation for its use in connection with
its product. Complainant also notes
that its proprietary blend was the subject of a three-month clinical trial that
was published on November 12,
2002 and that its design firm was working on the
AVLIMIL branding package throughout the fall of 2002. Complainant contends that this supports its senior rights in the
AVLIMIL mark.
Complainant
notes that Respondent updated its websites corresponding to the subject domain
names by creating a webpage featuring the
term AVLIMILL, together with photos
and statements alleging corresponding television and magazine ads. However, the links on the page revert to
browsers featuring competitive third party products. Complainant further states that Respondent has supplied no
evidence of trademark use on packaging or in advertising.
With
respect to Respondent’s claimed creation of the term “AVLIMILL,” Complainant
argues that Respondent has not provided evidence
of the development of the term
prior to the dispute.
Complainant
points to four recent panel decisions and additional domain names registered by
Respondent to establish a long history
of registering multiple domain
names that are slight misspellings of
third party trademarks.
In
response to the procedural order of September 11, 2003, Complainant submitted a
photocopy of an ad that ran in the January 6, 2003
edition of “Forbes”
magazine, together with evidence that the issue went on sale on December 23,
2002. In addition, Complainant submits
an order form for the ad placed by a sister company for all 2003 issues of
“Forbes.” Finally, Complainant submits
a shipping order dated December 2, 2002 from the company Complainant uses to
manufacture the AVLIMIL
product.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”
Paragraph
4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which the Complainant
has rights;
(2)
the
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, in its submission in
response to the procedural order, provided dated evidence of its use of the
mark AVLIMIL prior to
the registration of the subject domain names. The mark AVLIMIL differs from the domain
name <avlimill.com> by a
single letter. It is otherwise
identical in sound, appearance and commercial impression. It is accordingly confusingly similar to a
trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Similarly, the domain names <avlmil.com>, <avimil.com>, <avilimil.com> and <avlomil.com> are highly similar in sound, appearance and
commercial impression to Complainant’s mark.
Accordingly, the Panelist finds that these domain names registered by
Respondent are likewise confusingly similar to a trademark in
which Complainant
has rights. See Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccaini, FA 95762
(Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000).
The only circumstance that Respondent
could rely on to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests in any of the
domains is Paragraph
4(c)(i) of the Policy.
However, it is well-established that when a domain name Registrant is
using a domain to misdirect traffic to a website by employing
a domain name
that is a slight misspelling of a mark in which a trademark owner has rights,
the use is not a bona fide offering of
goods or services regardless of whether
the goods or services are competing or the offering of those goods and services
in and of
itself is bona fide. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Party Night Inc.,
FA 144647 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 18, 2003).
In light of the fact that Respondent has
registered numerous misspellings of well-known marks and as a result has been
the target
of no less than 28 UDRP proceedings, the Panelist gives little
weight to Respondent’s story regarding the creation of the word “AVLIMILL,”
particularly given the considerable promotional activities of Complainant in
advance of registration of the subject domain names.
Respondent has not been commonly known by
any of the subject domain names. Nor is
Respondent making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of any of the domain
names. Accordingly, the Panelist finds
that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of any of
the subject domain
names.
It does not appear that Respondent
registered the subject domain names primarily for the purpose of selling,
renting or otherwise
transferring the domain names to the Complainant or to a
competitor of the Complainant.
Registration of the domain names does not prevent the Complainant from
reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain as Complainant
registered <avlimil.com> long before Respondent
registered the subject domain names. It
does not appear that the domain names were registered primarily for the purpose
of disrupting the business of Complainant.
However, it is clear that Respondent has
engaged in a pattern of conduct, in registering and using the subject domains,
to intentionally
attract Internet users to his web site by creating a
likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark for commercial gain pursuant
to
Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The
misdirection was initially to a link to unrelated and non-competitive
websites. However, the inference from
Respondent’s later activity in creating an initial web site page, both
featuring a seemingly competing
product and linking to actual competing products,
is a further indication of bad faith use.
See TM Acquisition Corp. v.
Carroll, FA 97073 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 14, 2001).
The Panelist makes no finding with
respect to the returned Complaint.
Because Complainant has satisfied all
three elements of the Policy, Respondent’s allegation of reverse domain name
hijacking must
fail. See World Wrestling Fed’n Entm’t, Inc. v.
Ringside Collectibles, D2000-1306 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2001).
DECISION
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <avlimill.com>; < avlmil.com>; <
avimil.com>;
<avilimil.com>; and <avlomil.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
P. Jay Hines, Panelist
Dated: September 30, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/944.html