Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Gerber Products Company v. Cybertexx.com
Claim Number: FA0404000257646
PARTIES
Complainant
is Gerber Products Company (“Complainant”),
represented by Baila H. Celedonia, of Cowan, Liebowitz & Celedonia, P.C., 1133 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036-6799. Respondent is Cybertexx.com (“Respondent”), P.O. Box 243, Auburn, IN 46706-0243.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <gerberbabyfoods.com>
(the “Domain Name”) registered with Go
Daddy Software, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
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.
Michael
Albert as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on April 20, 2004; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on April 22, 2004.
On
April 20, 2004, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the domain name <gerberbabyfoods.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
April 26, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of May 17,
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@gerberbabyfoods.com by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 17, 2004.
An
Additional Submission was received from Complainant dated May 24, 2004. Respondent filed an Additional Submission on
May 31, 2004.
On May 27, 2004, pursuant to Complainant’s request to
have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Michael Albert as
Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
Complainant
contends that:
-
it began producing strained baby food in connection with the GERBER mark in the
United States in 1928, and now manufactures nearly
190 food products labeled in
16 languages and distributed to 80 countries;
-
it is the owner of the GERBER mark, a world-famous mark in the field of baby
food and infant care products;
-
it owns several registrations for the GERBER mark in the United States
including Reg. No. 574,727 for GERBER® (Stylized); Reg. No.
560,057 for GERBER®
and Design; Reg. No. 405,310 for GERBER® and Design; as well as other
registrations throughout the world;
-
Complainant owns the domain name <gerber.com>, as well as numerous
variations thereof in the .com and other gTLDs and ccTLDs;
-
the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's registered
GERBER mark and to Complainant’s domain name <gerber.com>,
with only the
addition of certain generic words that enhance rather than detract from the
association with Complainant;
-
Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the name in that it is not
Respondent’s personal name, Respondent is not known
by that name, and
Respondent does not engage in any legitimate business under the Domain Name;
-
Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name has been in bad faith,
including in that Respondent has used the Domain Name
to redirect web traffic
to one of Complainant’s competitors.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
contends that:
-
the Domain Name includes two generic words and therefore is not confusingly
similar to the admittedly famous and protected mark
GERBER;
-
there are other users of the mark GERBER for other goods or services;
-
the Domain Name is not currently in use;
-
the registration was “more a renewal than a registration” since, after
Respondent’s original registration of the Domain Name in
November 2003 lapsed,
Respondent re-registered the Domain Name through a different registrar in January
2004;
- Respondent used the Domain Name to operate a
discussion page about baby food, which constituted a noncommercial or “fair
use” of the
Domain Name;
-
Complainant lacks sufficient evidence of its claim that Respondent used the
Domain Name to link to a competitor’s website because
the screen shots
purporting to evidence such use are unsupported by any affidavit.
C.
Additional Submissions
Complainant
filed an Additional Submission, primarily to rebut Respondent’s contention that
the screen shots showing Respondent’s
Domain Name linked to a competitor’s
website were unsupported with evidence.
Attached to the Additional Submission was an affidavit establishing when
and how the screen shots were printed.
Respondent
filed an Additional Submission which claims that Complainant’s Additional
Submission was an improper amendment of its Complaint. Respondent further argues that the
Additional Submission was untimely in that it was unaccompanied by the requisite
fee.
FINDINGS
The Panel finds that Complainant has
established that it owns the mark GERBER, which is a strong,
federally-registered trademark of
considerable duration and fame. The Panel finds that Respondent has not
established that it has any legitimate rights to the Domain Name in that it has
not persuasively
established that it has made any noncommercial or fair use of
the Domain Name as it contends.
Finally, the Panel finds that Complainant has established that
Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith.
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; and
(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 has established rights in the
GERBER mark by using it in commerce for over seventy-five years and by
registering it with
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. 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) (noting
that prior 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 rebutting the
presumption of distinctiveness, and has not even attempted to do so; indeed
Respondent
admits that the GERBER mark is protected and famous.
There is no relevance to Respondent’s
contention that there are other users of GERBER marks. These uses do not appear to be in connection
with baby food, and there is no evidence that they undermine the strength of
Complainant’s
mark or the validity of its registrations.
The only difference between the Domain Name and
Complainant’s admittedly famous and federally-registered GERBER mark is the
addition
of the words “baby” and “foods” to Complainant’s mark. The addition of these words does not obviate
confusion. On the contrary, it enhances
the likelihood of confusion because of the fact that Complainant’s mark is well
known to be associated
with the provision of baby foods.
It is well established in prior UDRP
cases that the addition of generic terms does not avoid a finding of confusing
similarity between
a domain name and a mark.
See, e.g., Savin Corp. v. Mowbray, FA 103869 (Nat.
Arb. Forum, Mar. 1, 2002) (finding <savincity.com> identical or
confusingly similar to complainant’s mark
SAVIN); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. All Phase Builders, FA 99608
(Nat. Arb. Forum, Oct. 11, 2001) (finding confusing similarity between STATE
FARM and <statefarm-claims.com>); Magnum Piering, Inc. v. Mudjackers, D2000-1525 (WIPO, Jan. 29,
2001) (finding domain names wholly incorporating complainant’s mark and adding
generic terms “PIER,”
“PIERS,” “PIERING” or “INC” to be confusingly similar to
complainant’s mark); Quixtar Invs., Inc.
v. Hoffman, D2000-0253 (WIPO, May 29, 2000) (finding
<quixtarmortgage.com> identical or confusingly similar to QUIXTAR).
In fact, the addition of the generic
terms “baby” and “foods” to Complainant’s GERBER mark only increases the
likelihood of confusion,
as Complainant is primarily known for its baby food
products. Internet users are likely to
conclude that the domain name is Complainant’s, or is associated with
Complainant. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. All Phase Builders, FA 99608
(Nat. Arb. Forum, Oct. 11, 2001) (finding that the addition of a term that
refers to complainant’s services increases the
likelihood of confusion); Magnum Piering, Inc. v. Mudjackers,
D2000-1525 (WIPO, Jan. 29, 2001) (finding that the addition of terms that refer
to complainant’s services increases the likelihood
of confusion).
The deletion of the spaces between
“gerber,” “baby” and “foods” in
Respondent’s domain name likewise does not obviate confusion, as that usage
simply reflects a functional limitation of
the Internet naming system. See, e.g., Hannover Ruckversicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft v. Ryu, FA 102724
(Nat. Arb. Forum, Jan. 7, 2002) (finding <hannovere.com> identical to
HANNOVER RE); CBS Broad. Inc. v.
Worldwide Webs, Inc., D2000-0834 (WIPO, Sept. 4, 2000) (finding
<ilovelucy.com> identical to I LOVE LUCY); Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding <mrsworld.net> identical to MRS.
WORLD).
In sum, the Domain Name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s mark.
Respondent contends that it used the
Domain Name for a noncommercial purpose, namely to host a discussion forum
about baby food. If this were in fact
true, it would present at the very least a prima facie argument for legitimate
interests. The Panel, however, is
unpersuaded of the veracity of this assertion.
First of all, Respondent offers no proof or evidence of any kind to
support this contention. Respondent
does not even provide an affidavit asserting that this usage occurred, let
alone any print-outs of any pages reflecting
the existence of such a discussion
forum. Instead, Respondent states:
Respondent developed a web site residing
at www.gerberbabyfoods.com shortly after its inception in 1999. This web
site consisted of a simple discussion page where Internet visitors could post
and reply
to concerns about feeding their children with packaged baby food,
primarily those produced by Gerber.
This web site drew plenty of visitors with these concerns and the
comments posted reflected these concerns. Respondent always considered
this web
site to be good faith and used to deliver parents a question and answer type
discussion board with broad and public opinion
where they could express their
concerns about feeding their children with these products. The Internet made
all this easier with
its capability to reach a world-wide audience. Respondent
does not have any archived "screenshots" as he did not anticipate
to
have this dispute heard any time in the future. Furthermore, Respondent due to
the non-commercial activity associated with the
disputed domain name never
archived any records of traffic, visitors or text logs of the subjects, people,
internet visitors or other
involved in discussions. Respondent is offering this as a self-serving statement just like
Complainant is alleging in their complaint that a company representative
recorded a "screenshot" of a computer screen.
Assuming arguendo that a usage of the type Respondent refers to would be a
legitimate noncommercial use, Respondent’s contention that it operated such
a
forum is unpersuasive to this Panel.
First of all, Respondent offers no testimony, such as an affidavit,
establishing under oath and penalty of perjury that such a forum
existed. Secondly, Respondent has apparently been
entirely unable, despite the numerous research and retrieval tools available on
the Internet,
to unearth a single document constituting or reflecting the
discussions which it claims occurred.
(Complainant, on the other hand, has provided printouts from the
Internet web page archiving service located at <archive.org>
which
establish the uses discussed by Complainant but not those alleged by
Respondent.).
Despite these two deficiencies, the Panel
might still have been willing to give Respondent the benefit of the doubt, but
for the fact
that Respondent undermined its own credibility through its
contention, discussed further in the next section of this Decision, that
it never
used the Domain Name to link to the website of one of Complainant’s
competitors.
Respondent does not merely put
Complainant to its proof, requiring Complainant to meet its burden. Instead, Respondent affirmatively “denies
allegations that the domain name gerberbabyfoods.com resided [sic] to any of
the web-sites
claimed in the Complaint.”
The evidence put forward by Complainant, however, clearly establishes
that the Domain Name did in fact resolve to the website of H.
J. Heinz Co., a
competitor of Complainant’s in the baby food industry. The screen shots attached to the Complaint
make this fact clear. Respondent’s
willingness to make a representation to this Panel that is unsupported by any
evidence and flatly inconsistent with the
evidence in the record leaves the
Panel unable to credit other unsupported assertions made by Respondent
including that Respondent
at one time operated a legitimate discussion forum on
baby food – a claim for which, again, there is no evidence.
The Domain Name does not at present
resolve to any website. Previously,
however, Respondent used the Domain Name to link to the website of H. J. Heinz
Company, a competitor of Complainant.
Attached to the Complaint are screen shots taken on March 8, 2004
showing that Heinz’s website was accessible through the Domain Name. The content of the screen shots further
demonstrates that Heinz is a provider of baby food products which compete with
Complainant’s
baby food products.
Numerous panels have held that using a
domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to link to a website of
the complainant’s
competitor constitutes “bad faith” under the Policy. See,
e.g., Edmunds.com v. Ultimate Search,
Inc., D2001-1319 (WIPO Feb. 1, 2002) (“[R]egistration and use of a domain
name to redirect Internet users to websites of competing organizations
constitutes bad faith registration and use under the Policy.”); Netwizards, Inc. v. Spectrum Enters.,
D2000-1768 (WIPO Apr. 4, 2001) (“[R]egistration and continued use of the
contested domain name for re-directing Internet users,
i.e. particularly
customers and potential customers of the Complainant, from the Complainant’s
web site to the web site of . . .
a company which directly competes with the
Complainant, constitutes bad faith registration and use.”); Zwack Unicom Ltd v. Duna, D2000-0037
(WIPO Mar. 10, 2000) (respondent’s linking to complainant’s competitor held to
constitute bad faith); Oly Holigan, L.P.
v. Private, FA 95940 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2000) (finding bad faith
where respondent used the disputed domain name to “redirect[] the Complainant’s
consumers and potential consumers to commercial web sites which are not
affiliated with Complainant.”); Marriott
Int’l, Inc. v. Kyznetsov, FA 95648 (Nat. Arb. Forum. Oct. 24, 2000)
(finding bad faith where respondent registered the domain name
<marriottrewards.com>
and used it to route Internet traffic to another
website that “promotes travel and hotel services . . . identical to the
services
offered by the Complainant”).
Respondent initially claimed that there
was insufficient evidence that these screen shots were accurate depictions of
sites to which
the Domain Name linked.
In particular, Respondent questioned the absence of affidavit evidence
establishing the authenticity or date of the screen shots. Notably, however, Respondent failed to come
forward with any affidavit of its own that denied that the screen shots
accurately reflected
the websites that at one time were accessible at the
Domain Name. At that time, to be sure,
the burden of proof rested on Complainant and accordingly it was at least
arguable that Respondent had no
obligation to come forward with any such
evidence. The Panel finds that the
screen shots appended to the Complaint were, in and of themselves, and in the
absence of adequate explanations
from Respondent to the contrary, sufficient to
persuade the Panel that, more likely than not, the Domain Name did at one time
resolve
to the website of a competitor of Complainant’s.
UDRP cases are not governed by the same
rules of evidence that govern court proceedings. Instead, it is the Panel’s obligation to draw reasonable
inferences from the materials presented, and accord them such weight as the
Panel deems appropriate. While affidavit
evidence is preferred, and is often considerably more credible and persuasive
than unsworn evidence, the presence
of an affidavit to authenticate a document
is not a threshold requirement for the admissibility of the document in a
proceeding under
the Policy. In this
case, the Panel has no reason to question the authenticity of the screen shots,
nor indeed did Respondent articulate any outright
claim that they were forged
or otherwise unreliable. Accordingly,
the evidence that Respondent did precisely what Complainant asserts is
compelling.
The authentication dispute, moreover, was
mooted by the Additional Submissions.
In its Additional Submission, Complainant provided precisely the
affidavit Respondent claimed was lacking.
Strikingly, even then, Respondent’s response did not include any
contrary affidavit. Instead, Respondent
averred that Complainant’s submission was unaccompanied by the required
fee. Whether or not that assertion is
accurate is immaterial to the substantive question that this Panel is charged
with resolving, namely
whether Complainant has shown, more likely than not,
that Respondent acted in bad faith.
Complainant has amply met that burden.
Finally, the Panel finds that there is no
relevance to the fact that the Domain Name is not currently in use. Prior bad faith registration and use
suffices under the Policy. Nor is it
relevant that Respondent arguably “renewed” the registration in January 2004 rather
than that having been its initial registration. The result is the same under either view of that fact.
DECISION
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <gerberbabyfoods.com>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Michael Albert, Panelist
Dated: June 15, 2004
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/749.html