Center for Science in the Public Interest v. Guest Choice Network
Claim Number: FA0111000102524
Complainant is Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Washington, DC (“Complainant”) represented by Elizabeth Kingsley, of Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP. Respondent is Guest Choice Network, Washington, DC (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <cspinet.com>, registered with Network Solutions.
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.
James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on November 27, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 29, 2001.
On November 29, 2001, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <cspinet.com> is registered with Network Solutions and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions 5.0 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 November 29, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of December 19, 2001 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 email@example.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 December 28, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., 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 the Respondent to the Complainant.
Respondent ‘s <cspinet.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered CSPI mark.
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue.
Respondent regsitered and used the domain name at issue in bad faith.
No Response was received.
Complainant registered the CSPI trademark on the Principal Register of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office November 30, 1999 (Registration No. 2,294,989). Complainant first began using the CSPI mark in 1971. Complainant is a nonprofit education and advocacy organization whose services include improving the safety and nutritional quality of the food supply.
The CSPI mark is used in connection with Complainant’s representation of citizen’s interests before legislative, regulatory and judicial bodies; in the promotion of public health; to publish a newsletter and other documents related to public health; and on consumer products including tote bags and clothing.
Complainant has established a presence on the Internet through use of its <cspinet.org> website since February 24, 1996.
Respondent registered the <cspinet.com> domain name January 18, 2000, well after Complainant had made use of the trademark and had registered it. Respondent’s website provides two links on its website: one to Complainant’s website, and one to a website for criticism of Complainant’s services.
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 the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules.
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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Finally, Respondent’s use of its domain name for criticism of Complainant, using Complainant’s mark in its entirety, is not determined to be a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). As a result, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue. See E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Hanna Law Firm, D2000-0615 (WIPO Aug. 3, 2000) (finding that establishing a legitimate free speech/complaint site does not give rights to use a famous mark in its entirety).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Panel has found that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be hereby granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name <cspinet.com> be hereby transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: January 2, 2002
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page