Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Members Trust Company v. --
Claim
Number: FA0402000237521
Complainant is Members Trust Company (“Complainant”), represented
by Dana Berce Serrano, of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, 100 East Wisconsin Ave., Suite 3300, Milwaukee, WI 53202. Respondent is -- (“Respondent).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <membertrust.com>, registered with Tucows
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.
Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on February 17, 2004; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on February 18, 2004.
On
February 18, 2004, Tucows Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <membertrust.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
February 25, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting
a deadline of March 16, 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@membertrust.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
March 23, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., 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 <membertrust.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MEMBERS TRUST COMPANY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <membertrust.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <membertrust.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Since 1987,
Complainant has provided trust and asset management services to its
members. Complainant registered the
MEMBERS TRUST COMPANY mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
on February 11, 2003. (Reg. No. 2685579
filed July 5, 2001). Complainant has
used the MEMBERS TRUST COMPANY mark in conjunction with its business since
1987. Complainant uses the
<memberstrust.com> domain name in conjunction with its business.
Respondent
registered the <membertrust.com> domain name on September 24,
2002. Prior to Complainant’s
communication with Respondent’s representative, Respondent’s domain name
resolved to a commercial website. The
website announced the registration of a new member, “Hypnotrick.com, a hard
core hypnotism porn site.” Currently,
the domain name resolves to a website that blocks remote access to the site; it
states “Forbidden. You don't have
permission to access / on this server.”
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 MEMBERS TRUST COMPANY 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.”); see also 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).
Complainant’s
rights in the MEMBERS TRUST COMPANY mark revert to the date Complainant’s
application was filed with the USPTO.
Hence, Complainant’s rights in the mark were effective as of July 5,
2001, which is prior to the date Respondent registered the domain
name. See FDNY Fire Safety Educ. Fund, Inc. v.
Miller, FA 145235 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 26, 2003) (finding that
Complainant’s rights in the FDNY mark relate back to the date that its
successful
trademark registration was filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office); see also J. C. Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 340
F.2d 960, 144 U.S.P.Q. 435 (C.C.P.A. 1965) (registration on the Principal
Register is prima facie proof of continual use of the mark, dating back to the
filing
date of the application for registration).
Respondent’s <membertrust.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MEMBERS TRUST COMPANY
mark because the domain name incorporates the prominent
portion of the mark and
merely omits the letter “s” from “members” and the word “company.” Respondent’s omissions are insufficient to
distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark. See State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co. v. Try Harder & Co., FA 94730 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 15,
2000) (finding that the domain name <statfarm.com> is confusingly similar
to Complainant’s
STATE FARM mark); see also Asprey & Garrard Ltd v. Canlan Computing, D2000-1262 (WIPO Nov. 14, 2000) (finding that the domain name
<asprey.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s “Asprey &
Garrard” and “Miss Asprey” marks); see also Hammond Suddards Edge v. Westwood Guardian Ltd., D2000-1235 (WIPO
Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that the domain name, “hammondsuddards.net,” is
essentially identical to Complainant's mark,
Hammond Suddards Edge, where the
name “Hammond Suddards” identifies Complainant independently of the word
“Edge”).
Furthermore, the
addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is irrelevant in determining
whether the domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s mark. See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding
<pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s mark because the generic
top-level domain
(gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant); see
also Fed’n of Gay Games, Inc. v. Hodgson & Scanlon, D2000-0432 (WIPO June 28, 2000) (finding that
the domain name <gaygames.com> is identical to Complainant's registered
trademark
GAY GAMES).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Due to
Respondent’s failure to contest the allegations of the Complaint, the Panel
presumes that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate
interests in the <membertrust.com>
domain name. See 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); see also BIC
Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v. Tweed, D2000-0418 (WIPO June 20, 2000)
(“By not submitting a response, Respondent has failed to invoke any
circumstance which could demonstrate,
pursuant to ¶ 4(c) of the Policy, any
rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.”).
Furthermore,
Respondent’s <membertrust.com> domain name is confusingly similar
to Complainant’s mark and was previously used for commercial gain. Respondent’s past commercial use of the
infringing domain name is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate
interests in
the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See MSNBC Cable, LLC v. Tysys.com, D2000-1204 (WIPO Dec. 8, 2000)
(finding no rights or legitimate interests in the famous MSNBC mark where
Respondent attempted to
profit using Complainant’s mark by redirecting Internet
traffic to its own website); see also Nike, Inc. v. Dias, FA
135016 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (finding no “bona fide” offering of goods
or services where Respondent used Complainant’s
mark without authorization to
attract Internet users to its website, which offered both Complainant’s
products and those of Complainant’s
competitors).
In addition, the
record fails to establish that Respondent is commonly known by the <membertrust.com>
domain name. Therefore, the Panel
finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc.
v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in
Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly
known by’
the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)
does not apply); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM,
D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant;
(2) Complainant’s prior
rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is
not commonly known by the
domain name in question).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s
registration of a domain name incorporating the prominent portion of
Complainant’s mark and Respondent’s previous commercial
use of the infringing
domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iv). See H-D Michigan, Inc. v.
Petersons Auto., FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003) (finding that the
disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶
4(b)(iv) through Respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain
name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet
users to its fraudulent
website by using Complainant’s famous marks and likeness); see also G.D.
Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21,
2002) (finding that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith
pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent was using the confusingly
similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <membertrust.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated:
April 1, 2004
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/533.html