WorldLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions >> 2004 >> [2004] GENDND 1004

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Oakwood Asset Management, Inc. v. GradeSaver c/o Olivia Verma a/k/a GradeSaver.Com [2004] GENDND 1004 (5 August 2004)


National Arbitration Forum

DECISION

Oakwood Asset Management, Inc. v. GradeSaver c/o Olivia Verma a/k/a GradeSaver.Com

Claim Number: FA0406000286014

PARTIES

Complainant is Oakwood Asset Management, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Howard C. Miskin of Stoll, Miskin & Badie, 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4710, New York, NY 10118.  Respondent is GradeSaver c/o Olivia Verma a/k/a GradeSaver.Com (“Respondent”), represented by Abhihit Das of Tremont Law Group LLP, One Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME  

The domain name at issue is <novelguides.com>, registered with Network Solutions, Inc.

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.

David P. Miranda, Esq. as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on June 11, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 14, 2004.

On June 15, 2004, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <novelguides.com> domain name is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, 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 June 17, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of July 7, 2004 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@novelguides.com by e-mail.

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 14, 2004.

On July 19, 2004, a timely Additional Submission was received from Complainant.

On July 27, 2004 an Additional Submission was received from Respondent.

On July 22, 2004, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David P. Miranda, Esq. as Panelist.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name <novelguides.com> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, Oakwood Asset Management, Inc. (“Complainant”), is the owner of a website titled <novelguide.com> that provides an education supplement for better understanding of classic and contemporary literature, consisting of literary analysis and synopses of popular books.  Complainant also owns <novelguide.net> and <novelguide.org>.  Complainant contends that its predecessor in interest began using the NOVELGUIDE mark on or about June 8, 1998 in connection with its goods and services.  On February 2, 2004, Complainant filed a trademark application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the mark NOVELGUIDE for online and printed publications that summarize chapters of popular books, in International Class No. 16.  In the application Complainant contends that its date of first use in commerce is June 8, 1998.

Complainant contends that Respondent’s <novelguides.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark and that Respondent did not register its <novelguides.com> domain name until January 31, 2000.  Complainant contends that because the mark associated with both Complainant and Respondent’s primary website is for providing similar services, that there is likelihood of confusion between Respondent’s use of the domain name and Complainant’s mark.  Complainant contends that Respondent’s <novelguides.com> domain name is intended to direct customers and readers wishing to utilize Complainant’s services directly to Respondent’s website at <gradesaver.com>, and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website, products and services.

B. Respondent

Respondent, GradeSaver, LLC (“Respondent”), contends that Complainant does not have federally registered or common law trademark rights to NOVELGUIDE.  Respondent further contends that Complainant’s conclusion that it has “built up a reputation for providing quality literary analysis and synopsis of books to its readers” is not sufficient to establish secondary meaning or common law trademark rights.  Respondent further contends that the proposed mark NOVELGUIDE is merely descriptive because it is a product that is a guidebook, explanatory tool or summary of a book or novel.

Respondent contends that Complainant has not and cannot offer proof that NOVELGUIDE has sufficient secondary meaning, such that consumers identify summaries of novels with its goods and services.  Respondent further contends that it has legitimate rights and interests in the <novelguides.com> domain name because it is used on the Internet to link users directly to its website, which provides free novel guides with full summaries and analysis.  Respondent contends that it has offered services via the Internet using the <novelguides.com> domain name since January 31, 2000, and was not informed of the potential domain name dispute until March 26, 2004.

C. Additional Submissions

Both Complainant and Respondent made additional submissions that were considered by the Panel.  Complainant contends that it has common law rights to the NOVELGUIDE service mark because every one of its 1500 plus website pages has a reference to the NOVELGUIDE mark.  Every visitor to the website has seen the mark and any advertisements used to promote the website contain the mark.  Complainant contends that the term NOVELGUIDE is not merely descriptive, or an industry standard because there are several businesses that perform the same services that do not use that term.  Complainant contends that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith because Respondent’s website diverts Internet users seeking Complainant’s goods and services to Respondent’s website through the use of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s name and mark.  Complainant further contends that Respondent never used the term “novelguides” to describe its services until March 26, 2004, after Complainant had sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent.

Respondent contends that Complainant has failed to establish any attachment of secondary meaning such that consumers would identify NOVELGUIDE as a distinctive source of in depth analysis of novels, thus Complainant cannot establish common law trademark rights.  Respondent further contends that Complainant has failed to submit any proof of consumer confusion.

FINDINGS

The panel finds that the <novelguides.com> domain name is confusingly similar to NOVELGUIDE, but that Complainant has not established trademark rights to the mark.  Complainant has failed to establish all of the required elements of its claim and its request for transfer is denied.


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.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant asserts that it has established rights in the NOVELGUIDE mark by filing an application for the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Serial No. 76/573,357 filed February 2, 2004).  Complainant also argues that, even if the Panel finds its pending trademark application for the NOVELGUIDE mark insufficient to prove rights in the mark, Complainant may establish common law rights through secondary meaning.  Complainant contends that its products and services have built up a reputation for quality in literary analysis.

The <novelguides.com> domain name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NOVELGUIDE mark, because it merely adds the letter “s” to Complainant’s mark and adds a generic top-level domain (gTLD).  Addition of the letter “s” to Complainant’s mark along with the addition of a gTLD is inadequate to negate the confusing similarity between a mark and domain name.  See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive); see also 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 the users of Complainant’s services and those who were to view a website provided by Respondent accessed through the contested domain name); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).

Complainant does not have a federally registered trademark, and has not proven sufficient common law rights in the NOVELGUIDE mark, because Complainant failed to provide evidence that would establish any secondary meaning associated with its goods or services.  Complainant’s assertions that its products and mark have acquired a reputation among consumers is insufficient without supporting evidence to show secondary meaning.  See Weatherford Int’l, Inc. v. Wells, FA 153626 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2003) (“Although Complainant asserts common law rights in the WELLSERV mark, it failed to submit any evidence indicating extensive use or that its claimed mark has achieved secondary source identity . . . [a]lthough Complainant’s WELLSERV product and related services may be well-known among relevant consumers, that is a finding that must be supported by evidence and not self-serving assertions.”); see also Molecular Nutrition, Inc. v. Network News & Publ’ns, FA 156715 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2003) (approving of and applying the principles outlined in prior decisions that recognized “common law” trademark rights as appropriate for protection under the Policy “if the complainant can establish that it has done business using the name in question in a sufficient manner to cause a secondary meaning identifiable to Complainant's goods or services”).

Complainant’s pending trademark application, without more, does not establish rights in the NOVELGUIDE mark.  See Razorbox, Inc. v. Skjodt, FA 150795 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 9, 2003) (finding that Complainant did not establish the requisite trademark or common law rights to grant Complainant the necessary standing for the Panel to find in its favor as Complainant’s pending trademark application did not, in and of itself, demonstrate trademark rights in the mark applied for); see also Amsec Ent. v. McCall, D2001-0083 (WIPO Apr. 3, 2001) (finding that Complainant’s pending trademark applications do not establish any enforceable rights to the mark until a trademark registration is issued).

Complainant’s contention that it received rights to the mark NOVELGUIDE from its predecessor in interest is not supported by the record.  Since Complainant has not sufficiently established rights in the NOVELGUIDE mark through either common law rights or its pending trademark application, Respondent’s registration of the <novelguides.com> domain name predates Complainant’s alleged rights in the mark.  See Phoenix Mortgage Corp. v. Toggas, D2001-0101 (WIPO Mar. 30, 2001) (finding that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) “necessarily implies that Complainant’s rights predate Respondent’s registration . . . of the domain name”); see also Intermark Media, Inc. v. Wang Logic Corp., FA 139660 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2003) (finding that any enforceable interest that Complainant may have in its common law mark did not predate Respondent’s domain name registration, therefore finding that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) had not been satisfied).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has used the disputed domain name to access its services since January 31, 2000, while Complainant first informed Respondent of its potential rights on March 26, 2004.  Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to describe the content of the website that provides literary summaries is a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).  See Canned Foods Inc. v. Ult. Search Inc., FA 96320 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2001) (“Respondent is using the domain <groceryoutlet.com> for a website that links to online resources for groceries and similar goods. The domain is therefore being used to describe the content of the site,” as evidence that Respondent was making a bona fide offering of goods or services with the disputed domain name); see also Tough Traveler, Ltd. v. Kelty Pack, Inc, D2000-0783 (WIPO Sept. 28, 2000) (finding that Respondent had a legitimate interest in the domain name, <kidcarrier.com>, as a generic term for a class of products that Respondent sells).

Since the Panel determines that Complainant did not have rights in the NOVELGUIDE mark at the time Respondent registered the <novelguides.com> domain name, Respondent may have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  See Latent Tech. Group, Inc. v. Fritchie, FA 95285 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 1, 2000) (finding that Respondent does have a legitimate interest in the domain name where Complainant applied for registration of the mark after Respondent registered the domain name and Complainant has not proven any earlier use of the mark); see also Warm Things, Inc., Inc. v. Weiss, D2002-0085 (WIPO Apr. 18, 2002) (finding that Respondent had rights or legitimate interests in a domain name when its registration of that domain name occurred before Complainant had established rights in its alleged mark).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Since the Panel finds that Complainant failed to establish rights in the NOVELGUIDE mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the <novelguides.com> domain name, there is no evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Interep Nat'l Radio Sales, Inc. v. Internet Domain Names, Inc., D2000-0174 (WIPO May 26, 2000) (finding no bad faith where Respondent registered the domain prior to Complainant’s use of the mark); see also Ode v. Intership Ltd., D2001-0074 (WIPO May 1, 2001) (“We are of the unanimous view that the trademark must predate the domain name.”).

DECISION

Complainant failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief requested shall be DENIED.

David P. Miranda, Esq., Panelist
Dated: August 5, 2004


WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/1004.html