Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
On Stage Entertainment, Inc. v. Internet
Search Engine
Claim Number: FA0308000187424
Complainant is On Stage Entertainment, Inc., Las
Vegas, NV (“Complainant”) represented by Christopher
R. Grobl of Silver State Legal. Respondent is Internet Search Engine, Fort Wayne, IN
(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <legendsinconcert.com> registered with Enom,
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 August 19, 2003; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on August 21, 2003.
On
Aug 25, 2003, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <legendsinconcert.com>
is registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of
the name. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent
is bound by the Enom, 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
August 28, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
September 17, 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@legendsinconcert.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
September 22, 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 <legendsinconcert.com>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s LEGENDS IN CONCERT mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <legendsinconcert.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <legendsinconcert.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant has
produced evidence of a trademark registration with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office for the LEGENDS IN
CONCERT mark (Reg. No. 1,412,642 registered
on October 7, 1986) related to entertainment services, namely the presentation
of live
performances featuring impressionists. Complainant uses the mark in
connection with live stage shows that consist of performers impersonating
famous musical performers in cabarets and theatres principally located in hotel
casinos throughout the world.
After an agent
of Complainant accidentally allowed its registration of the <legendsinconcert.com>
domain name to lapse, Respondent registered the domain name on June 2, 2003.
Respondent does not have an active website at the disputed
domain name.
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 LEGENDS IN CONCERT mark through registration with the
USPTO. See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. 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”).
Complainant
contends that the <legendsinconcert.com> domain name is identical
to Complainant’s LEGENDS IN CONCERT mark because the disputed domain name
incorporates Complainant’s mark
in its entirety and simply omits the spaces
between the words in the mark. The omission of spaces does not serve to render
the domain
name significantly differentiated from Complainant’s mark for
purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Hannover Ruckversicherungs-AG v.
Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (finding
<hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as spaces are
impermissible
in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as ‘.com’ or
‘.net’ is required in domain names”); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27,
2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name <charlesjourdan.com> is
identical to Complainant’s
marks).
The Panel
concludes that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent has
neglected to challenge Complainant’s allegations in this dispute. Therefore,
the Panel accepts all reasonable allegations
and inferences in the Complaint to
be true. See Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Bavarian AG, FA110830 (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, based
on Respondent’s failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all
rights to and legitimate interests in
the disputed domain name. 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 Respondent
never submitted a Response or
provided the Panel with evidence to suggest otherwise); 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 has
not yet directed the <legendsinconcert.com> domain name toward an
active website. Furthermore, Complainant is the prior registrant of the
disputed domain name. In light of the
fact that Respondent neglected to contest
the Complaint, the Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to use the domain name
and its
opportunistic registration of the domain name demonstrates 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 Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero,
D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where Respondent failed to submit a Response to the Complaint
and had made no
use of the domain name in question); see also Boeing Co. v. Bressi, D2000-1164 (WIPO Oct. 23, 2000) (finding no
rights or legitimate interests where Respondent has advanced no basis on which
the Panel
could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the
domain names, and no use of the domain names has been established);
see also
American Anti-Vivisection Soc’y v. “Infa dot Net” Web Serv., FA 95685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 6, 2000)
(finding that Complainant’s prior registration of the same domain name is a
factor in considering
Respondent’s rights or legitimate interest in the domain
name).
Respondent has offered no proof and there is no evidence in the record
that Respondent is commonly known by LEGENDS IN CONCERT or
<legendsinconcert.com>. Accordingly, the Panel finds that
Respondent has failed to establish any rights to or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain
name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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); see also
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").
The Panel
concludes that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Policy ¶ 4(b)
lists four circumstances, which, if found to be present, constitute bad faith
registration and use. However, this was
never intended to be an exclusive list.
In appropriate circumstances, the Panel is permitted to consider the totality
of the circumstances
when determining whether a domain name has been registered
and used in bad faith. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624
(WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“the examples [of bad faith] in Paragraph 4(b) are
intended to be illustrative, rather than exclusive”);
see also Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser,
FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (finding that in determining if a
domain name has been registered in bad faith, the Panel
must look at the
“totality of circumstances”).
Respondent is
not using the <legendsinconcert.com> domain name to point to an
active website. In addition, Respondent opportunistically registered the
disputed domain name when Complainant’s
domain name registration was
inadvertently allowed to lapse. Respondent’s opportunistic registration leads
the Panel to conclude
that the <legendsinconcert.com> domain name
was registered and used in bad faith. See InTest Corp. v. Servicepoint, FA 95291 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30,
2000) (finding that where the domain name has been previously used by
Complainant, subsequent
registration of the domain name by anyone else
indicates bad faith, absent evidence to the contrary); see also BAA plc v. Spektrum Media Inc.,
D2000-1179 (WIPO Oct. 17, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent took
advantage of Complainant’s failure to renew a domain name);
see also Phat Fashions v. Kruger, FA 96193 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Dec. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) even
though Respondent has not used the domain
name because “It makes no sense
whatever to wait until it actually ‘uses’ the name, when inevitably, when there
is such use, it will
create the confusion described in the Policy”).
Accordingly, the
Panel concludes that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <legendsinconcert.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra
Franklin, Panelist
Dated:
October 3, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/949.html