Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
TM Acquisition
Corp. v. CenturyofRealty
Claim Number: FA0403000248956
PARTIES
Complainant
is TM Acquisition Corp. (“Complainant”),
represented by Kathryn S. Geib, 1 Sylvan Way, Parsippany, NJ 07054. Respondent is CenturyofRealty (“Respondent”), 12271 Trask Ave. #4, Garden Grove,
CA 92843.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <centuryofrealty.com>,
registered with Go Daddy Software, 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.
Judge
Richard B. Wickersham, (Ret.), as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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 25,
2004.
On
March 24, 2004, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the domain name <centuryofrealty.com>
is registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that the Respondent is the
current registrant of the name. Go
Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy
Software, 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
March 26, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of April 15,
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@centuryofrealty.com by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 15, 2004.
On April 28, 2004, pursuant to Complainant’s request to
have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Judge Richard B.
Wickersham, (Ret.), as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
Complainant, TM Acquisition Corp., is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Nevada. It is the owner of numerous CENTURY 21®
Marks as registered with the USPTO and has licensed the CENTURY 21 Marks to
Century 21 Real
Estate Corporation (“Century 21”). Century 21 is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in New Jersey. Century 21
sub-licenses the CENTURY 21 Marks to its franchisees throughout the United
States and in many foreign countries.
TM Acquisition Corp. and Century 21 are subsidiaries of Cendant
Corporation, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
in New
York.
Pursuant to its license from TM Acquisition Corp.,
Century 21 has the right to use 94 registered and numerous common law marks in
the United States. Of these, five (5)
are for the CENTURY 21 word mark.
Century
21 is a franchisor of a system of business for the promotion and assistance of
independently owned and operated real estate
brokerage offices, including
policies, procedures and techniques designed to enable such offices to compete
more effectively in the
real estate sales market. Century 21 licenses its franchisees the right to use the CENTURY
21® Marks in their real estate brokerage offices throughout the United
States
and has licensed the CENTURY 21 Marks to Master Franchisors operating in at
least 26 other countries.
Century 21 has used the CENTURY 21 Marks
in the USA continuously in connection with the offering of real estate
brokerage services
since April 16, 1972.
Over the past 30 years, Century 21 has expended many millions of dollars
and significant time, resources and effort in advertising,
promoting and
establishing the goodwill of the CENTURY 21 Marks in association with its
business.
B.
Respondent
Domain
name confusion/similarity: Prior to receiving notice from the National
Arbitration Forum about this domain name complaint, CenturyofRealty.com has not
been made
aware of any confusion with the trademarks or domain names of the
complainant from our customers. Nor, had we received any complaint
from
any representative of TM Acquisition Corp, or their licensees until April 1,
2004.
Respondent’s legitimate interest in the
domain name: CenturyofRealty.com
was unaware of the extent of domain name protection provided by the UDRP and
began using the domain name <centuryofrealty.com> in good faith
beginning in mid January 2004. The initial awareness of the complaint was
when the package was received by conventional
mail on April 1, 2004 because
admin@centuryofrealty.com is an unused portal.
Millenium
Online Business is a registered operation base in Orange County, California. We
discovered availability of domain name <centuryofrealty.com>
after numerous word match attempts in an effort of putting together a domain
name that simply describes our services without using
the long word
“millenium.” Being that we were unaware
of the internet law, we did not perform a trade/service mark check, instead we
assumed that we had legal
protection when we buy and use an untaken domain
name. We neither intended to cause
confusion for internet clients nor interested in claiming any source of
affiliation with any other businesses.
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.
Complainant
asserts that it has rights in the CENTURY 21 mark through its registration of
the mark and use in commerce. The Panel
finds that Complainant is the proper party to bring this claim and the Panel
finds that Complainant has established rights
in the CENTURY 21 mark. 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).
The
Panel finds that the <centuryofrealty.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to the CENTURY 21 mark. The domain name appropriates the main word
of the mark, namely CENTURY, only adding the words “of realty,” which does not
significantly
distinguish the domain name from the mark. In addition, the addition of the word
“realty” describes Complainant. Panels
have held that adding a word to Complainant’s mark that describes Complainant
increases the likelihood of confusion. 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 Marriott Int’l v. Café au
lait, FA 93670, (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s
domain name <marriott-hotel.com> is confusingly similar
to Complainant’s
MARRIOTT mark).
The
Panel finds that Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to create a
domain name that competes with Complainant, which
is not a bona fide offering
of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the domain
name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See
Yahoo! Inc. v. Web Master, FA 127717 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 27, 2002)
(finding that Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to operate
a pay-per-click
search engine, in competition with Complainant, was not a bona
fide offering of goods or services); see
also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June
23, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s appropriation of Complainant’s mark to
market products that
compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a
bona fide offering of goods and services).
The Panel also finds that, although Respondent’s
name is apparently Century of Reality, it is not commonly known by this name,
pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See
Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v.
Neiman-Marcus, FA
135048 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2003) (noting that “Complainant has established itself as the sole holder of all rights and
legitimate interests in the NEIMAN MARCUS mark,” in holding
that Respondent was
not commonly known by the <neiman-marcus.net> name, despite naming
itself “Neiman-Marcus” in its WHOIS contact information); see also XO
Communications Inc. v. XO Network Operations Ctr. Inc., FA 150786 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Apr. 28, 2003) (finding that evidence indicating that Respondent was
a serial cybersquatter permitted
the inference that Respondent’s
self-proclaimed identity of “XO Network Operations Center Inc.” was insincere,
and thus that Respondent
was not commonly known by the <xonoc.com> or
<xonoc.net> domain names).
The
Panel finds that Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark primarily for
the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business,
finding bad faith
registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc.,
FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent acted in bad faith
by attracting Internet users to a website that
competes with Complainant’s
business); see also General Media
Communications, Inc. v. Vine Ent., FA 96554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 26, 2001)
(finding bad faith where a competitor of Complainant registered and used a
domain name
confusingly similar to Complainant’s PENTHOUSE mark to host a
pornographic web site).
The
Panel also finds that Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to create
a likelihood of confusion, to attract Internet
users for commercial gain. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu,
FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that Respondent’s use of the
<saflock.com> domain name to offer goods competing
with Complainant’s
illustrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name,
evidence of bad faith registration
and use pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv)); see
also AltaVista v. Krotov,
D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)
where Respondent linked the domain name to a website
that offers a number of
web services).
DECISION AND FINDINGS
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <centuryofrealty.com>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
_______________________________________
Richard B. Wickersham, Panelist
Dated: May 11, 2004
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/615.html