Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Hewlett-Packard Company and Hewlett
Packard Development Company, L.P. v. InNet Technologies
Claim Number: FA0309000193580
Complainants are Hewlett-Packard Company and Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P., Palo Alto, CA
(“Complainants”) represented by Molly Buck Richard and Heather C. Brunelli of Thompson & Knight LLP. Respondent is InNet Technologies, Rialto, CA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <hp-laserjet-printer.com> registered with Tucows,
Inc.
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.
James
A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainants
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on September 5, 2003;
the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on September 8, 2003.
On
September 5, 2003, Tucows, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <hp-laserjet-printer.com> is registered with Tucows,
Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows, Inc.
has verified that Respondent
is bound by the Tucows, 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
September 12, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting
a deadline of October 2, 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@hp-laserjet-printer.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
October 10, 2003, pursuant to Complainants’ request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James
A. Carmody, Esq., 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.
Complainants
request that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainants.
A. Complainants make the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <hp-laserjet-printer.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainants’ HP and LASERJET marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <hp-laserjet-printer.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <hp-laserjet-printer.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainants
have provided this Panel with evidence of numerous trademark registrations with
the United States Patent and Trademark
Office (“USPTO”) for the HP mark,
including Reg. No. 614,803 (registered on October 25, 1955) related to
thermistor mounts. Complainants
have used the HP mark in commerce since at
least as early as 1941 in connection with Complainants’ goods, services and
advertising
throughout the world.
Complainant has
also provided evidence of trademark registrations with the USPTO for the
LASERJET mark (Reg. No. 1,458,061 registered
on September 22, 1987) related to,
inter alia, non-impact printers for office and data processing.
Respondent registered the <hp-laserjet-printer.com> domain name on
June 23, 2003. Prior to notification of this dispute by Complainants,
Respondent made no use of the disputed domain
name. Subsequent to Complainants’
notification, Respondent established a website at the domain name purportedly
related to “Landmark
Printer Services,” which offers refurbished HP laserjet
printers, new HP printers, authorized HP laserjet service, printer support,
laserjet maintenance kits and “SuperLife” brand laser toner cartridges. Landmark
Printer Services is an authorized reseller that
participates in Complainants’
authorized service provider program. However, Respondent is not affiliated with
Complainant.
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 Complainants’
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 Complainants 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
Complainants
have 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.
Complainants
have demonstrated rights in both the HP and LASERJET marks with regard to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of said
marks with the USPTO. See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher,
D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that registration
of a mark is prima facie evidence of
validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently
distinctive. Respondent has the burden of
refuting this assumption).
Complainants
contend that Respondent’s <hp-laserjet-printer.com> domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainants’ marks because the disputed domain name
appropriates Complainants’ marks and merely
adds the generic term “printer,” a
term directly related to Complainants’ business. The addition of this term to
Complainants’ marks
does not significantly distinguish Respondent’s domain name
from the marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See
Space Imaging LLC v. Brownwell, AF-0298
(eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where Respondent’s
domain name combines Complainant’s mark with
a generic term that has an obvious
relationship to Complainant’s business); see also L.L. Bean, Inc. v. ShopStarNetwork, FA
95404 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2000) (finding that combining the generic word
“shop” with Complainant’s registered mark “llbean”
does not circumvent
Complainant’s rights in the mark nor avoid the confusing similarity aspect of
the ICANN Policy).
The Panel finds
that Complainants have established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent has
failed to answer Complainants’ allegations in the Complaint. Therefore, the
Panel accepts 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 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”).
Moreover,
Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances that could demonstrate rights
to or legitimate interests in the <hp-laserjet-printer.com> domain
name. When Complainants assert a prima facie case against Respondent,
the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it has rights to or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain
name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l,
D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where Respondent fails to respond); 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).
The website at
the <hp-laserjet-printer.com> domain name advertises the products
and services offered by Landmark Printer Services, an authorized reseller of
Complainants’ products.
However, the WHOIS information associated with the
disputed domain name lists Respondent as the registrant of the domain name. The
Panel finds that Respondent’s advertising for an authorized reseller of
Complainants’ products does not represent a bona fide offering
of goods or
services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of
the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
See U.S. Franchise Sys., Inc. v.
Howell, FA 152457 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 6, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark and the goodwill
surrounding that mark as a means of attracting Internet users
to an unrelated
business was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also
Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, 188
F.Supp.2d 110, 114 (D. Mass. 2002) (finding that,
because Respondent's sole purpose in selecting the domain names was to cause
confusion with Complainant's
website and marks, its use of the names was not in
connection with the offering of goods or services or any other fair use).
Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo, that the
authorized product reseller registered the <hp-laserjet-printer.com> domain name, its status as an authorized
reseller does not entitle it to use Complainants’ marks in a domain name. See Allen-Edmonds Shoe Corp. v. Takin’ Care of Bus., D2002-0799 (WIPO
Oct. 10, 2002) (“without a specific agreement between the parties, the reseller
does not have the right to use
the licensor’s trademark as a domain name”); see
also Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R &
S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that
Respondent, a reseller of Complainant’s products, did not have rights or
legitimate interests in a domain name that was confusingly similar to
Complainant’s mark).
Respondent has
proffered no proof and no evidence in the record indicates that Respondent is
commonly known by HP LASERJET PRINTER
or <hp-laserjet-printer.com>.
Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights to
or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name
with regard 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 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).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Complainants have established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s
unauthorized registration of the <hp-laserjet-printer.com> domain
name to sell Complainants’ products suggests that the disputed domain name was
primarily registered to disrupt the business
of a competitor, Complainants,
which evidences bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Nokia Corp. v. Lakhani, D2000-0833
(WIPO Oct. 19, 2000) (transferring <nokias.com> from Respondent cellular
phone dealer to Complainant); see also Fossil, Inc. v. NAS, FA 92525 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 23, 2000)
(transferring the <fossilwatch.com> domain name from Respondent, a watch
dealer not
otherwise authorized to sell Complainant’s goods, to Complainant).
Moreover,
Respondent’s unauthorized, commercial use of the <hp-laserjet-printer.com>
domain name indicates that Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users
to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood
of confusion with
Complainants’ marks, which is evidence of registration and use in bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See
Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000)
(finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected
with Complainant’s
well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion
strictly for commercial gain); see also eBay, Inc v. Progressive Life Awareness Network, D2000-0068 (WIPO
Mar. 16, 2001) (finding bad faith where Respondent is taking advantage of the
recognition that eBay has created
for its mark and therefore profiting by
diverting users seeking the eBay website to Respondent’s site).
Furthermore,
even if Respondent were the authorized reseller advertised on Respondent’s
website, such status does not impute rights
in the <hp-laserjet-printer.com>
domain name. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. OfficeOnWeb Ltd., FA 151537
(Nat. Arb. Forum May 21, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s unauthorized use of
the LASERJET mark to operate as a reseller
of Complainant’s products
constituted bad faith use and registration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see
also Heel Quik! Inc. v. Goldman, FA 92527 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 1, 2000)
(holding that the registration of a domain name in violation of a license
agreement is
evidence that the domain name was registered and used in bad
faith).
The Panel finds
that Complainants have 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 <hp-laserjet-printer.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant, Hewlett-Packard Company.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated:
October 15, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/979.html