Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Broadvox, LLC v. Broadvox Metrocom
Corporation and Daniel Mullen
Claim Number: FA0408000310976
PARTIES
Complainant
is Broadvox, LLC (“Complainant”),
represented by Robert E. Chudakoff, of Ulmer & Berne LLP,
1300 E. 9th St., Suite 900, Cleveland, OH 44114-1583. Respondent is Broadvox
Metrocom Corporation and Daniel Mullen (“Respondent”), P.O. Box
1900, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada C1A 7N5.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <broadvox.com>, <broadvox.biz>, and <broadvox.info>, registered with Neonic Oy, Tucows Inc. and R139-Lrms, respectively.
PANEL
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.
David
P. Miranda, Esq., as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on August 10, 2004; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on August 12, 2004.
On
August 11, 2004 and Aug 12, 2004, Neonic Oy, Tucows Inc.or R139-Lrms confirmed by e-mail to the Forum
that the domain names <broadvox.com>, <broadvox.biz>, and <broadvox.info> are registered with Neonic Oy, Tucows Inc.,
and R139-Lrms respectively, and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Neonic Oy, Tucows Inc., and R139-Lrms have verified that
Respondent is bound by the Neonic Oy, Tucows Inc., or R139-Lrms registration
agreements 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 16, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of September
6, 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@broadvox.com, postmaster@broadvox.biz, and
postmaster@broadvox.info by e-mail.
A
Response was received on September 7, 2004.
Complainant’s
additional submission in support of Complaint was submitted on September 10,
2004. Respondents’ Response to the
additional submission was dated September 14, 2004. Both were considered by the Panel.
On September 14, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
Complainant,
Broadvox, LLC (“Complainant”) claims that BROADVOX is its trademark in use
since August 29, 2001, for the purpose of
providing Internet telephony
services. Complainant contends that
Respondent Broadvox Metrocom Corporation and Daniel Mullen (“Respondent”)
registration and use of <broadvox.com>, <broadvox.biz>, and
<broadvox.info> are in violation of ICANN policy and seeks transfer
of these domains.
Complainant
contends that it owns exclusive rights in and to the mark “BROADVOX” based upon
its use since August 29, 2001 and based
upon its application for federal
registration of the trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark
Office. Complainant also claims to be
the holder of the <broadvox.net> and <broadvoxdirect.com>
domain names since August 29, 2001, and has advertised, promoted, and offered
its services via those domain names.
Complainant
contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Broadvox
domain names because it has not conducted
any business under the BROADVOX
marks, and Respondent’s website located at <broadvox.com> is
blank, reading only “broadvoxmetrocom │ voice data wireless and
more.” The <broadvox.biz>
and <broadvox.info> domain names both returned search errors.
Complainant
contends that Respondent’s registration and use is in bad faith because
Complainant’s website was in use for nearly 18
months prior to Respondent’s
registration of the domains at issue, and that Respondent knew of Complainant’s
business and of Complainant’s
website located at <broadvoxdirect.com>.
Complainant
contends that after issuing a cease and desist letter to Respondent, Respondent
registered domain names <broadvox.biz> and <broadvox.info>. Complainant contends that further evidence
of Respondent’s bad faith is evidenced by the multiple UDRP decisions in which
Daniel Mullen
was Respondent and was ordered to transfer certain other
unrelated domain names.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
contends that Complainant does not have exclusive rights to use BROADVOX as a
trademark, and that prior use of the name
was made by an apparently unrelated
party Broadvox.com, Inc. Respondent
contends that registration of the domain names <broadvox.net>
and <broadvoxdirect.com> are to parties other than
Complainant. Respondent disputes
Complainant’s alleged use of the BROADVOX name via the web, showing the
printout of the <broadvoxdirect.com> website dated January
11, 2004, indicating the website is not currently available, and that <broadvoxdirect.com>
is preparing for the official launch of its site.
Respondent
contends that it made extensive preparations with respect to its business under
the BROADVOX name, including gaining clearance
under Canadian law prior to
expending $6,000 to purchase the domain name <broadvox.com>. It developed its website and engaged in
other business activities prior to notice from Complainant of the dispute.
Respondent
contends that Complainant has misrepresented its use of the mark, Complainant’s
website was not operable in August of 2001,
Complainant does not have a
physical presence in Canada and on April 8, 2004, and Complainant changed its
name from Broadvox Carrier
Services, LLC to Broadvox, LLC. The service mark application submitted by
Claimant lists Broadvox Carrier Services, LLC, not the Complainant Broadvox,
LLC as the
Applicant.
C.
Additional Submissions
Complainant’s
additional submission contends that even by Respondent’s own admission,
Complainant has been conducting business under
the BROADVOX mark for at least
18 months prior to Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain
names. Complainant contends that it is
the only party to ever actually use the mark BROADVOX in connection with goods
and services and such
commercial use predates Respondent’s registration. Complainant contends that it is already
offering its services in Canada, and a customer attempting to locate
Complainant on the Internet
will instead find Respondent’s inactive
website. Complainant contends that
evidence submitted by both parties clearly shows that the consuming public has
come to associate the BROADVOX
mark with Complainant’s goods and services;
however, Complainant fails to specify what evidence establishes this claim.
Respondent
submits a Response to Complainant’s additional submission. Respondent contends that Complainant has not
demonstrated its relationship with the legal Registrant of <broadvox.net>
under which Complainant alleges it was doing business. Respondent contends that it is doing
business in Canada under the BROADVOX name and that Complainant has no
clearance from any Canadian
regulatory authority to do so. Respondent contends that Complainant does
not have a federally registered trademark in the United States or Canada. Respondent also requests a finding of a
reverse domain name hijacking by Complainant.
FINDINGS
Complainant Broadvox, LLC is based in
Cleveland, Ohio and provides Internet telephony services. Complainant has shown a pending trademark
application by a company known as Broadvox Carrier Services, LLC, for the
BROADVOX mark. Although Complainant has
shown use of the mark, it has failed to show sufficient trademark rights to
warrant transfer under the UDRP
Rules.
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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which the 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 alleges that it has
established rights in the BROADVOX mark through its U.S. Trademark Application
for registration of
the mark dated April 4, 2004, and through use of the mark
in commerce since August 29, 2001.
Although the rules require that Complainant’s trademark or service mark
be registered by a government authority or agency for trademark
rights to exist,
the common law rights may be acquired through a showing of secondary meaning
associated with the mark and Complainant.
See S.A. Bendheim Co., Inc. v. Hollander Glass, FA 142318 (Nat.
Arb. Forum March 13, 2003).
Complainant’s pending trademark
application, without more, does not demonstrate rights in the mark. See Holms v. Whois Prot. Serv., FA
288395 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Aug. 17, 2004); see also Tees.com, LLC v. Emphasys
Techs., Inc., FA 206362 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Dec. 27, 2003).
Complainant does not have a federal
registration to the mark BROADVOX. It
has an application that is currently pending.
It is note worthy that the pending application is in the name of a
company that is different than Complainant’s name, and Complainant
offers no
information as to the relationship between those parties. Furthermore, Respondent raises the issue of
prior commercial use of the mark BROADVOX that could prevent registration.
In
the absence of registration to the mark, the applicant must establish common
law trademark rights by demonstrating sufficiently
strong identification of its
mark by the public, showing the mark has acquired secondary meaning. Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden
of providing proof upon which a finding of secondary meaning could be based. Although a Complainant in a proceeding such
as this may establish common law rights to a mark, the Complainant in this case
has failed
to do so. See, generally,
NBA Prop., Inc. v. Adirondack Software Corp., D2000-1211 (WIPO Dec. 8,
2000) (denying Complaint because Complainant was not the owner of the
trademarks); 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); Diversified Mortgage, Inc. v. World Fin.
Partners, FA 118308
(Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2002) (finding that the UDRP makes clear that its
“rules are intended only to protect trademarks,
registered or common law, and
not mere trade names, due to the fact that trade names are not universally
protected as are trademarks”);
Tees.com, LLC v. Emphasys Techs., Inc.,
FA 206362 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Dec. 27, 2003).
Thus, Complainant has failed to establish
Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Since Complainant has failed to establish
the first element of the Policy, it is unnecessary to address the claims under
the remaining
two elements. See
Creative Curb v. Edgetec Int’l Pty. Ltd., FA 116765 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept.
20, 2002) (finding that because Complainant must prove all three elements under
the Policy, Complainant’s
failure to prove one of the elements makes further
inquiry into the remaining element unnecessary); see also Holms v. Whois
Prot. Serv., FA 288395 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Aug. 17, 2004).
Respondent has failed to meet its burden
of establishing reverse domain name hijacking by Complainant.
DECISION
Complainant having failed to establish
all three elements required under the ICANN policy, the Panel concludes that
relief shall be
Denied.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <broadvox.com>,
<broadvox.biz> and <broadvox.info> domain names Remain
With Respondent.
David P. Miranda,
Esq., Panelist
Dated: September 27, 2004
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/1153.html