Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

General Electric Company v. Network Marketing [2005] GENDND 2122 (12 December 2005)

World Intellectual Property Organization

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

General Electric Company v. Network Marketing

Case No. D2005-1064

1. The Parties

The Complainant is General Electric Company, Fairfield, Connecticut, United States of America, represented by Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, PC, New York, New York, United States of America.

The Respondent is Network Marketing, St. Johns, Antigua and Barbuda.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <geinterlogix.com> is registered with eNom.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 8, 2005. On October 11, 2005, the Center transmitted by email to eNom a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On October 11, 2005, eNom transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 13, 2005. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 2, 2005. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 10, 2005.

The Center appointed Ross Carson as the sole panelist in this matter on November 28, 2005. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

Complainant has used, registered, and owns the names and marks GE, INTERLOGIX and GE INTERLOGIX, as well as numerous other trademarks and domain names incorporating GE.

Complainant has used the GE mark in commerce for over a century, since as early as 1899. During that time, Complainant has sold billions of dollars worth of products and services under the GE mark, and has spent billions of dollars to advertise the mark. Complainant continues to use and advertise the mark extensively, in connection with a wide variety of goods and services, as a result of which the mark has become exceptionally famous. General Electric Company v. Momm Amed la, WIPO Case No. D2000-1727 (“It is clear from the evidence that … GE is well recognized and famous both in the United States and internationally.”). Complainant is the holder of a substantial number of trademark registrations on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for GE both as a letter mark and as a stylized circular monogram mark. Representative copies of Complainant’s United States registrations for the GE mark are annexed as Exhibit E to the Complaint.

Complainant has also extensively used the mark INTERLOGIX and the composite mark GE INTERLOGIX throughout the world in connection with a wide array of electronic security products and systems. The INTERLOGIX mark has been in use since as early as 2000. In 2001, Complainant acquired all rights, title and interest in and to the INTERLOGIX mark when it purchased Interlogix, Inc. Complainant and its predecessor-in-interest have sold billions of dollars worth of electronic security products throughout the world under the INTERLOGIX mark and name and, since 2001, under the GE INTERLOGIX composite mark.

Complainant is also the owner of numerous registrations throughout the world for the INTERLOGIX mark standing alone. Attached as Exhibit K to the Complaint is a schedule of Complainant’s INTERLOGIX registrations around the world.

Complainant has registered and uses the domain name <ge.com> (registered August 5, 1986) to deliver information concerning Complainant and its products and services. Representative pages from Complainant’s web site at “www.ge.com” were annexed as Exhibit H to the Complaint.

Complainant has also advertised and promoted its GE INTERLOGIX products and systems on the Internet through the domain name <ge-interlogix.com> and more recently through dedicated web pages within its web site at “www.gesecurity.com”. (Exhibit L to the Complaint.)

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Confusingly Similar

Complainant submits that the domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s GE, GE INTERLOGIX and INTERLOGIX marks, as it fully incorporates the GE and INTERLOGIX marks that form the composite mark GE INTERLOGIX. The mere addition of the gTLD suffix .com to “geinterlogix” is of no import. See, e.g., PepsiCo, Inc. v. “null”, aka Alexander Zhavoronkov, WIPO Case No. D2002-0562; The Forward Association, Inc. v. Enterprises Unlimited, National Arbitration Forum (NAF) Claim No. FA95491. Thus, confusing similarity must be presumed.

No Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant submits that because Complainant’s adoption and extensive use of the GE, INTERLOGIX and GE INTERLOGIX marks far predate the creation date of February 26, 2004 of the domain name in dispute, (Exhibit A to the Complaint), the burden is on Respondent to establish its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in dispute. See PepsiCo, Inc. v. Amilcar Perez Lista d/b/a Cybersor, WIPO Case D2003-0174.

Complainant further submits that Respondent cannot demonstrate or establish any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in dispute. There is no relationship between Complainant and Respondent giving rise to any license, permission, or other right by which Respondent could own or use any domain name incorporating Complainant’s GE, INTERLOGIX or GE INTERLOGIX marks. Certainly, the domain name in dispute is not, nor could it be contended to be, a name or nickname of the Respondent, nor is it in any other way identified with or related to any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent.

Complainant submits that Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in dispute solely for commercial gain. When an Internet user types the domain name in dispute into a browser the user is connected to a search engine and linking portal as shown in Exhibit M to the Complaint. Entering the address of the domain name in dispute into a browser also triggers a variety of “pop-up” and “popunder” advertising, a representative sampling of which is depicted in Exhibit N to the Complaint. The search engine and linking portal located at the domain name in dispute, in addition to offering links to, inter alia, online gambling, travel and financial websites, also displays links labeled “General Electric” and “GE.” Rather than linking to any legitimate web site of Complainant, however, these links only lead the user to more linking portals and ultimately to a variety of Internet retailers totally unrelated to Complainant, but many of which offer goods competitive with those of Complainant. (Exhibit O to the Complaint.) Upon information and belief, Respondent derives a financial benefit in the form of click-through revenue from the web traffic that is diverted through the domain name in dispute to this search engine and linking portal as well as from the “pop-up” or “popunder” advertising that appears in connection with the domain name in dispute. The search engine and linking portal is operated by Domainsponsor.com, which creates and places identical looking web pages at domain names owned by its member domain name holders, and which pays the domain name holders revenue for the traffic generated through the domain names. (Exhibit P to the Complaint (copy of a typical Domainsponsor.com landing page and explanation of Domainsponsor.com’s revenue program).

Registered And Used In Bad Faith

Complainant submits that Respondent’s bad faith registration and use is established by the fact that Respondent has sought to profit in bad faith from the domain name in dispute. Complainant further submits that Respondent is using the domain name in dispute to divert web traffic for profit to a search engine and linking portal and to trigger “pop-up” or “popunder” advertising. (Exhibits M and N to the Complaint.) Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark to redirect Internet users interested in Complainant’s products and services to a commercial website that offers a search engine and links to retailers that compete with the Complainant is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name. Société des Hôtels Méridien v. LaPorte Holdings, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2004-0849; General Electric Company v. LaPorte Holdings. Inc., WIPO Case No.D2005-0076.

Complainant submits that there can be no doubt as to Respondent’s pattern of bad faith registration and use given that Respondent continues to register and use numerous domain names based on third party trademarks and names (many of which are “typo” domains). By way of example, Respondent has registered such names as <elvispresleyonline.com>, <britneysprears.com>, <thespiderman2.com>, <chuckechesses.com>, <mindsrping.com>, <altavizsla.com>, <gicci.com>, <mtv55.com> and <playstasion.com>, all of which are being used to generate web traffic to the Domainsponsor.com search portal. (Exhibits Q (whois records) and R to the Complaint (web pages)).

Complainant further submits that the facts set forth above make it clear that Respondent is using the goodwill and fame of Complainant’s GE, INTERLOGIX and GE INTERLOGIX names and marks in bad faith. Respondent has registered the domain name in dispute in order to improperly benefit itself financially. Moreover, this activity demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the domain name in dispute in violation of the Policy because, as set forth in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, “by using the domain name, [Respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [its] web site. . ., by creating a likelihood of confusion” with Complainant’s GE, INTERLOGIX, and GE INTERLOGIX marks “as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [its] web site. . . or of a product or service on [its] web site….”

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this proceeding and obtain the transfer of the domain name, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:

1. The domain name 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.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy clearly states that the burden of proving that all these elements are present lies with the Complainant.

Pursuant to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Moreover, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of or requirement under the Rules or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences there from, as it considers appropriate. The Respondent did not file a Response to the Complaint. By reason of the failure of the Respondent to file a Response, the Panel infers that the Respondent does not contest the proof submitted in the Complaint.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s GE, GE INTERLOGIX and INTERLOGIX marks, as it fully incorporates the GE and INTERLOGIX marks that form the composite mark GE INTERLOGIX. The mere addition of the gTLD suffix .com to “geinterlogix” is of no import. See, e.g., PepsiCo, Inc. v. “null”, aka Alexander Zhavoronkov, WIPO Case No. D2002-0562; The Forward Association, Inc. v. Enterprises Unlimited, NAF Claim No. FA95491.

The Panel finds that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks GE, GE INTERLOGIX and INTERLOGIX.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

There is no relationship between Complainant and Respondent giving rise to any license, permission, or other right by which Respondent could own or use any domain name incorporating Complainant’s GE, INTERLOGIX or GE INTERLOGIX marks. The domain name in dispute is not a name of the Respondent, nor is it in any other way identified with or related to any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent.

Since the GE, INTERLOGIX and GE INTERLOGIX marks and names are well known and Respondent has no rights in them, the only reason why Respondent could have wanted to register and use a domain name incorporating the composite mark GE INTERLOGIX was not for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use purpose, but rather because it wanted to use Complainant’s famous mark in order to profit from the web traffic it would generate from consumers. See General Electric Company v. Momm Amed la, WIPO Case No. D2000-1727 (“It is clear from the evidence that Respondent, or its agents and associates are using the domain name [<gebenefits.com>] to redirect Internet traffic to a range of commercial sites…. Given the massive reputation in GE, the redirection of Internet traffic is likely to deliver a commercial benefit to the Respondent and/or its agents and associates.”)

The Respondent chose not to file any evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in dispute.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in dispute.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The facts set forth above make it clear that Respondent is using the goodwill and fame of Complainant’s GE, INTERLOGIX and GE INTERLOGIX names and marks in bad faith. Respondent has registered and used the domain name in dispute in order to improperly benefit itself financially.

Respondents activity demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the domain name in violation of the Policy because, as set forth in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, “by using the domain name, [Respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [its] web site. . ., by creating a likelihood of confusion” with Complainant’s GE, INTERLOGIX, and GE INTERLOGIX marks “as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [its] web site. . . or of a product or service on [its] web site….”

The Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the Respondent registered and used the domain name in dispute in bad faith.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, <geinterlogix.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

_________________________________________

Ross Carson

Sole Panelist

Date: December 12, 2005