START-UP TRADEMARK OPPOSITION POLICY

 

DECISION

 

Northwest Airlines Inc. v. Highlands

Claim Number: FA0204000109755

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Northwest Airlines Inc., Eagan, MN (“Complainant”) represented by Joseph H. Kelly.  Respondent is Highlands, Miami, FL (“Respondent).

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <northwest.biz>, registered with Iholdings.com, 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.

 

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant has standing to file a Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy (“STOP”) Complaint, as it timely filed the required Intellectual Property (IP) Claim Form with the Registry Operator, NeuLevel.  As an IP Claimant, Complainant timely noted its intent to file a STOP Complaint against Respondent with the Registry Operator, NeuLevel and with the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”).

 

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 18, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 17, 2002.

 

On May 22, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of June 11, 2002 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent in compliance with paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for the Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy (the “STOP Rules”).

 

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 July 10, 2002, pursuant to STOP Rule 6(b), the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as the single 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 STOP Rules.  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the STOP Policy, STOP Rules, the Forum’s STOP Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Transfer of the domain name from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The <northwest.biz> domain name is identical to Complainant’s NORTHWEST mark.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <northwest.biz> domain name.

 

Respondent registered the <northwest.biz> domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns a registered trademark for the NORTHWEST mark, which is registered on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,721,791).  Complainant uses the NORTHWEST mark in connection with its commercial airline services. 

 

Respondent registered the <northwest.biz> domain name on March 27, 2002.  Respondent has made no apparent use of the domain name.  On the WHOIS registration information page Respondent listed an Administrative Contact Address as “THIS DOMAIN FOR SALE.” 

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the STOP 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 STOP Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the STOP Rules.

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the STOP Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be transferred:

 

(1) the domain name is identical 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 or is being used in bad faith.

 

Due to the common authority of the ICANN policy governing both the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and these STOP proceedings, the Panel will exercise its discretion to rely on relevant UDRP precedent where applicable.

 

Under the STOP proceedings, a STOP Complaint may only be filed when the domain name in dispute is identical to a trademark or service mark for which a Complainant has registered an Intellectual Property (IP) claim form.  Therefore, every STOP proceeding necessarily involves a disputed domain name that is identical to a trademark or service mark in which a Complainant asserts rights.  The existence of the “.biz” generic top-level domain (gTLD) in the disputed domain name is not a factor for purposes of determining that a disputed domain name is not identical to the mark in which the Complainant asserts rights.

 

Complainant’s Rights in the Mark

Complainant has established rights to the NORTHWEST mark through registration on the Principal Register of the USPTO and subsequent continuous use.

 

Respondent’s <northwest.biz> domain name contains Complainant’s entire NORTHWEST mark with the inconsequential addition of “.biz.”   Therefore, Respondent’s domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. 

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

In light of Complainant’s assertion that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and Respondent’s failure to respond, the Panel may presume Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names).  Furthermore, when Respondent fails to submit a Response, the Panel is permitted to make all inferences in favor of Complainant.  See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. Webnet-Marketing, Inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant to be deemed true).

 

Respondent has failed to come forward to offer any evidence that it is the owner or beneficiary of a trade or service mark that is identical to the <northwest.biz> domain name.  Furthermore, Complainant’s investigation revealed that Respondent has no rights in any mark similar to the NORTHWEST mark.  Therefore, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name pursuant to STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).  See Nat’l Acad. Of Recording Arts & Sci Inc. v. Lsites, FA 103059 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 11, 2002) (finding that, because Respondent did not come forward with a Response, the Panel could infer that it had no trademark or service marks identical to <grammy.biz> and therefore had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. D3M Virtual Reality Inc. & D3M Domain Sales, AF-0336 (eResolution Sept. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests under the UDRP where no such right or interest is immediately apparent to the Panel and Respondent has not come forward to suggest any right or interest it may possess).

 

Respondent appears to have registered the <northwest.biz> domain name for the purpose of selling it given Respondent’s notification on the WHOIS page that “THIS DOMAIN IS FOR SALE.”  Also, Respondent has failed to use or even provide any evidence of demonstrable plans to use the domain name.  Therefore, Respondent does not use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See J. Paul Getty Trust v. Domain 4 Sale & Co., FA 95262 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2000) (finding rights or legitimate interests do not exist when one has made no use of the websites that are located at the domain names at issue, other than to sell the domain names for profit); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. High Performance Networks, Inc., FA 95083 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the Respondent registered the domain name with the intention of selling the domain name).

 

Complainant never granted Respondent a license or permission to use its NORTHWEST mark.  Respondent is not commonly known as NORTHWEST or <northwest.biz>.  Therefore, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name pursuant to STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use); see also Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <northwest.biz> domain name, thus, STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. 

 

Registration or Use in Bad Faith

As previously mentioned, Respondent supplied “THIS DOMAIN IS FOR SALE” as an Administrative Contact Address on the WHOIS registration page.  Thus, an inference may be drawn that Respondent registered <northwest.biz> for the purpose of selling it. Therefore, Respondent’s registration of the <northwest.biz> domain name constitutes bad faith under STOP Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Parfums Christain Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent’s WHOIS registration information contained the words, “This is domain name is for sale”); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Mehrotra, D2000-0053 (WIPO Apr. 10, 2000) (finding bad faith where that Respondent registered the domain name for the purpose of selling it, as revealed by the name the Respondent chose for the registrant, “If you want this domain name, please contact me”).

 

Furthermore, due to Complainant’s registration of the NORTHWEST mark on the Principal Register of the USPTO and the unique nature of the STOP IP Claim procedure, Respondent had notice of Complainant’s rights in the NORTHWEST mark upon registering <northwest.biz>.  Therefore, Respondent’s registration, despite knowledge of Complainant’s rights, constitutes bad faith under STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Victoria’s Cyber Secret Ltd. P’ship v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 161 F.Supp.2d 1339, 1349 (S.D.Fla. 2001) (noting that “a Principal Register registration [of a trademark or service mark] is constructive notice of a claim of ownership so as to eliminate any defense of good faith adoption” pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1072); see also Valspar Sourcing, Inc. v. TIGRE, FA 112596 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 4, 2002) (“Respondent was on notice of Complainant’s rights in PAINT.BIZ when it registered the disputed domain name, because Respondent received notice of Complainant’s IP Claim.  Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name despite this notice when Respondent had no right or legitimate interest in the domain name is evidence of bad faith”); see also Gene Logic Inc. v. Bock, FA 103042 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 4, 2002) (finding that the unique nature of the STOP Policy and the notice given to Respondent regarding existing IP Claims identical to its chosen domain name precluded good faith registration of <genelogic.biz> when Respondent registered it with “full knowledge that his intended business use of this domain name was in direct conflict with a registered trademark of a known competitor in exactly the same field of business”).

 

The Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied. 

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the STOP Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be hereby GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <northwest.biz> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.  Furthermore, subsequent challenges under the STOP Policy against this domain name SHALL NOT be permitted because there are no further IP Claims.

 

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist

Dated: July 15, 2002

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page