Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Universal Form Clamp of Chicago, Inc. v.
Richard Mandanice
Claim Number: FA0403000248955
Complainant is Universal Form Clamp of Chicago, Inc. (“Complainant”),
represented by Aric S. Jacover, of Mayer, Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, 190
South LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60603.
Respondent is Richard Mandanice
(“Respondent”), 20 St-Aubin, Delson, Quebec J011G0, Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <universalformclamp.com>,
registered with Dotster.
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.
Judge
Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on March 24, 2004; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on March 26, 2004.
On
March 25, 2004, Dotster confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <universalformclamp.com> is
registered with Dotster and that Respondent is the current registrant of the
name. Dotster has verified that Respondent is bound
by the Dotster 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
March 31, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
April 20, 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@universalformclamp.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
May 3, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a
single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Judge
Harold Kalina (Ret.) 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 <universalformclamp.com> domain name is confusingly similar
to Complainant’s UNIVERSAL FORM CLAMP CO. mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <universalformclamp.com>
domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <universalformclamp.com> domain
name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
Universal Form Clamp of Chicago, Inc., has sold concrete form products since
1978. It has used the UNIVERSAL FORM
CLAMP CO mark since the company’s beginning.
Since that time, Complainant has spent millions of dollars on marketing
and advertising. Its current
advertising budget is approximately half a million dollars a year. In 2003 alone, Complainant had sales of over
$75 million.
Complainant
originally registered the <universalformclamp.com>
domain name in 1998. The domain name
registration expired in late 2003.
Respondent
registered the <universalformclamp.com>
domain name on October 1, 2003.
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to link to
<free-for-all.com>, a website with pornographic content and banner
advertisements
for pornography.
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
shown extensive trade under the UNIVERSAL FORM CLAMP CO. mark and continuous
use of the mark. The Panel finds that
Complainant has established secondary meaning in the mark, and, therefore, has
established rights in the mark. See Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248
(Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law rights in a mark where its
use was continuous and ongoing, and secondary
meaning was established); see also Fishtech v. Rossiter, FA 92976
(Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 10, 2000) (finding that Complainant has common law rights
in the mark FISHTECH, which it has used
since 1982).
The <universalformclamp.com> mark is
confusingly similar to the UNIVERSAL FORM CLAMP CO. mark. The only difference is the omission of the
spaces between words and the omission of the abbreviation “co.,” which does not
significantly
distinguish the domain name from the mark. See
Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am. v. Bucci, 42 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1430 (S.D.N.Y.
1997) aff’d 152 F3d 920 (2d Cir.
1998) cert. denied 525 U.S. 834
(1998) (finding plaintiff’s PLANNED PARENTHOOD mark and defendant’s
<plannedparenthood.com> domain name nearly identical);
see also Wellness Int’l Network, LTD v.
Apostolics.com, FA 96189 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 16, 2001) (finding that the
domain name <wellness-international.com> is confusingly similar
to
Complainant’s “Wellness International Network”).
The Panel finds
that Complainant has sufficiently established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent has
not filed a Response. Absent a
Response, the Panel may accept all reasonable assertions by Complainant as
true. See Ziegenfelder Co. v. VMH Enter., Inc., D2000-0039 (WIPO Mar. 14,
2000) (drawing two inferences based on Respondent’s failure to respond: (1)
Respondent does not deny
the facts asserted by Complainant, and (2) Respondent
does not deny conclusions which Complainant asserts can be drawn from the
facts);
see also CMGI, Inc. v. Reyes,
D2000-0572 (WIPO Aug. 8, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s failure to produce
requested documentation supports a finding for Complainant).
Respondent is
using the <universalformclamp.com>
domain name to link to pornography. Such
use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark is neither a
bona fide offering of goods or services, pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See Target Brands, Inc. v. Bealo Group S.A., FA 128684 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Dec. 17, 2002) (“Misdirecting Internet traffic by utilizing Complainant’s
registered mark [in order to
direct Internet users to an adult-oriented
website] does not equate to a bona fide offering of goods or services . . . nor
is it
an example of legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name . . .
Respondent was merely attempting to capitalize on a close
similarity between
its domain name and the registered mark of Complainant, presumably to gain
revenue from each Internet user redirected
to the pornographic website); see also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela,
FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that infringing on another's
well-known mark to provide a link to a pornographic
site is not a legitimate or
fair use).
There is nothing
in the record, including Respondent’s WHOIS information, which indicates that
Respondent is commonly known by the
disputed domain name. 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 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).
The Panel finds
that Complainant has sufficiently established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is
appropriating Complainant’s mark to redirect Internet users to pornography and
advertisements for pornography. The
Panel finds that Respondent is creating a likelihood of confusion with
Complainant’s mark to try to attract Internet users for
commercial gain,
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Geocities v. Geociites.com,
D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent linked the
domain name in question to websites displaying banner
advertisements and
pornographic material); see also CCA
Indus., Inc. v. Dailey, D2000-0148 (WIPO Apr. 26, 2000) (finding that “this
association with a pornographic web site can itself constitute bad faith”).
In addition, the
Panel holds that, since Complainant was the original holder of the <universalformclamp.com> domain
name, Respondent’s subsequent registration creates a presumption of bad
faith. Absent a Response from
Respondent, the Panel holds that Respondent’s registration of the <universalformclamp.com> domain
name, which Complainant previously held, is bad faith registration and
use. 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).
The Panel finds
that Complainant has sufficiently 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 <universalformclamp.com>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from
Respondent to Complainant.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
Dated:
May 14, 2004
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/599.html