Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. p
Zero
Claim Number: FA0710001087132
PARTIES
Complainant is Pirelli
& C. S.p.A. (“Complainant”),
represented by Anna Maria Bardone, of Porta, Checcacci & Associati S.p.A., Via Trebbia 20,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <p-zero.com>,
registered with Tucows Inc.
PANEL
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.
Mark McCormick, Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the
National Arbitration Forum electronically on October
1, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on October 3, 2007.
On October 1,
2007, Tucows Inc. confirmed by
e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <p-zero.com> domain
name is registered with Tucows Inc. and
that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Inc.
has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows
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 October 9,
2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of October 29,
2007 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@p-zero.com by
e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined
to be complete on October 26, 2007.
A timely additional submission was received
from Complainant on October 31, 2007. A
timely additional submission was received from Respondent on November 5, 2007.
On November 6, 2007,
pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Mark McCormick as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be
transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant asserts rights in the PZERO mark
by reason of numerous trademark registrations and contends that the disputed <p-zero.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to its mark.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the <p-zero.com> domain name and is not commonly known by the
name. Complainant also accuses Respondent of using hyperlinks to the domain
name to divert Internet users to competitors of Complainant, which is not a
bona fide offering of goods and services.
Complainant alleges Respondent registered and is using the domain name
in bad faith for his commercial benefit in receiving “click-through” fees to
websites offering services like those of Complainant, taking advantage of the
confusion between Complainant’s mark and the disputed name and disrupting
Complainant’s business.
B. Respondent
Respondent admits that the <p-zero.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PZERO mark. He contends that he originally registered the
<p-zero.com>
domain name in 2003 in connection with his band, which he named p-zero based on
a physics term, written Po, representing zero pressure value in equations. The name was used for Respondent’s website
until January 2007, after the band became inactive in 2006. In January 2007, Respondent started using the
website for an on-line blog to keep a diary of his running and triathlon
activities. He contends these uses show
his rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. He denies the allegation of bad faith,
asserting any visitor to his website would know at once he had no connection
with Complainant. He states his interest
in sports does not involve automobile or motorcycle racing which might be
associated with Complainant’s goods and services. He contends he has never pretended to have a
relationship with Complainant and that he has no control over Google’s
links. He argues that his advertising is
related to running and triathlons, not to businesses similar to Complainant’s.
C. Additional Submissions
Complainant contends Respondent did not show
Complainant knew of Respondent’s use of the <p-zero.com> domain
name for his band before January 2007 and no such use was shown, in any
event. Complainant says its objection is
to Respondent’s use of the domain name for links in the sports field. Complainant contends that its complaint is
about present use and that Respondent’s advertising will lead Internet users to
websites of competitors of Complainant.
Respondent in his additional submission, asserts that Complainant’s
inclusion of a printout of a page of his website as it existed for purposes of
Respondent’s band demonstrates that Complainant knew of such use prior to
January 2007. Respondent asserts he in
fact used the website to provide news and information about the band from April
2003 until January 2007. Respondent
contends that his lack of substantial revenue from advertising helps establish
he is not attempting to earn a profit by misleading Internet users at
Complainant’s expense.
FINDINGS
Complainant has rights in the PZERO mark
through trademark registration.
Respondent formed a band called p-zero and registered the domain name <p-zero.com>
in 2003 for a website for his band. The
band never got any bookings and disbanded in late 2006. In the meantime, Respondent had taken up
running and started doing triathlons. He
started using the website in January 2007 for an on-line blog for his family
and friends to keep up with his running and triathlon activities. If his band should re-form, he would use the
website again for the band. The problem
here arose when Respondent engaged a third-party advertising service to display
hyperlinks on his website in the hope of obtaining some click-through revenue
to help pay for his athletic activities.
At the time Respondent registered the domain
name, and during the period he used it to provide news and information about
his band, there were no advertising links on the website. The advertising links subsequently placed
there might take an Internet user to a website that markets a product similar
to one of the many products of Complainant, such as a bike tire, but the record
does not show that Respondent has set out to attract Internet users to his
website to divert them to websites of competitors of Complainant. The main purpose of Complainant’s current use
of the website is to record his running and triathlon experiences.
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.
Respondent admits that his disputed domain
name <p-zero.com>
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark PZERO. Complainant has thus established the domain
name is confusingly similar to Respondent’s mark under Policy 4(a)(i).
Even though Respondent registered the domain name for a legitimate purpose, that is to have a website for his band which he named p-zero for reasons unrelated to Complainant, he was not commonly known by the disputed domain name prior to its registration. See Yoga Works, Inc. v. Arpita, FA 155461 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003). The fact that Respondent’s website currently contains hyperlinks that could divert an Internet user seeking Complainant’s famous products to the website of a competitor shows that Respondent’s current use of the website is not for a bona fide offering of goods and services within the meaning of Policy 4(c)(ii). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002)
At the time Respondent registered the disputed domain name <p-zero.com> he did so in good faith. He did not register the domain name in bad faith under Policy 4(a)(iii). See Lee Procurement Solutions Co. v. getLocalNews.com, Inc., FA 366270 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2005). Moreover, he is not attempting to confuse Internet users and to divert them to the websites of Complainant’s competitors.
An
Internet user who finds Respondent’s website by mistake while looking for
Complainant’s products would quickly recognize that Respondent’s blog devoted
to his experiences and plans regarding triathlon events has no relationship
with Complainant. Bad faith registration
and use has not been proven within the meaning of Policy 4(c)(iii). See Caterpillar Inc. v. Off Rd. Equip. Parts,
FA 95497 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 10, 2000).
DECISION
Having considered all three elements required
under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Mark McCormick, Panelist
Dated: November 19, 2007
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum