Intel Corporation v. Gu Ja Bong
Claim Number: FA0204000112465
Complainant is Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA, USA (“Complainant”). Respondent is Gu Ja Bong, Namsan-dong Geumjeong-gu Busan, KOREA (“Respondent”).
The domain name at issue is <pentium.biz>, registered with Echokorea, Inc. d/b/a DomainReg.
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.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
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 26, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 27, 2002.
On May 6, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of May 27, 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 June 20, 2002, pursuant to STOP Rule 6(b), the Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., 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.
Transfer of the domain name from Respondent to Complainant.
1. Respondent’s <pentium.biz> domain name is identical to Complainant’s PENTIUM mark.
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <pentium.biz> domain name.
3. Respondent registered the <pentium.biz> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response.
Complainant is listed on the Principal Register of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as the owner of the PENTIUM mark (Reg. No. 1834434, issued May 3, 1994). In 1992, Complainant announced the introduction of its first PENTIUM processor, after introducing the world’s first microprocessor in 1971.
Respondent registered the contested <pentium.biz> domain name March 27, 2002 and has yet to develop a purpose for the domain name.
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 has established that it has rights in the PENTIUM mark through trademark registration with the USPTO and continuous subsequent international use. Respondent’s <pentium.biz> domain name is identical to Complainant’s PENTIUM mark in spelling and form.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Respondent has failed to come forward with a Response. Therefore, it is presumed that Respondent has no 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 not come forward to proffer any evidence that it has rights in the PENTIUM mark anywhere in the world. Complainant created the PENTIUM word and corresponding significance in its mark, and it is unlikely that Respondent has any rights in such a unique and distinct mark. Therefore, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the <pentium.biz> domain name under 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).
Due to the lack of Response, it may be inferred that Respondent intends to use the domain name in order to divert Internet users interested in Complainant’s services or products to Respondent’s future website. Thus, Respondent’s registration of <pentium.biz> is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Credit Suisse Group o/b/o Winterthur Ins. Co. v. Pal-Ex Kft, FA 102971 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 25, 2002) (“The use of another's trademark to attract users to Respondent's domain is not considered to be a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”); see also William L. Lyon & Assocs., Inc. v. Yata, FA 103043 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 21, 2002) (finding the Respondent’s “intent to trade [on] the goodwill of Complainant’s mark, by attracting Internet users confused as to the likely affiliation between Complainant and Respondent’s website” indicated the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests pursuant to STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)).
Furthermore, there is no evidence on the record, nor has Respondent come forward to establish that it is commonly known by the <pentium.biz> domain name pursuant to STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, D2000-1397 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where one “would be hard pressed to find a person who may show a right or legitimate interest” in a domain name containing Complainant's distinct and famous NIKE trademark); see also Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark).
The Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant’s PENTIUM family of marks represents internationally recognized symbols of computer processor technology. The word PENTIUM did not exist prior to Complainant’s creation of it. Due to the aforementioned circumstances, Complainant’s listing on the Principal Register of the USPTO, and the nature of STOP proceedings, Respondent is thought to have been on constructive notice of the existence of Complainant’s PENTIUM mark. Respondent’s subsequent decision to register an infringing domain name despite knowledge of Complainant’s prior rights in the PENTIUM mark represents bad faith registration under STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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 Victoria's Secret v. Hardin, FA 96694 (Nat Arb. Forum Mar. 31, 2001) (finding that, in light of the notoriety of Complainants' famous marks, Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the BODY BY VICTORIA marks at the time she registered the disputed domain name and such knowledge constitutes bad faith).
Respondent’s <pentium.biz> domain name is identical to Complainant’s established PENTIUM family of marks resulting in the likelihood that Internet users will believe that there is some affiliation between Respondent and Complainant; notwithstanding the fact that Respondent had no authorization to make use of Complainant’s mark. Registration and use of the <pentium.biz> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to STOP Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). It is inevitable that Respondent will attract unsuspecting Internet users seeking Complainant’s website thereby benefiting from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s mark. See Phat Fashions v. Kruger, FA 96193 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith under UDRP ¶4(b)(iv) even though Respondent had not used the domain name because “It makes no sense whatever to wait until it actually ‘uses’ the name, when inevitably, when there is such use, it will create the confusion described in the Policy”); see also Red Bull GmbH v. Gutch, D2000-0766 (WIPO Sept. 21, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s expected use of the domain name <redbull.org> would lead people to believe that the domain name was connected with Complainant, and thus is the equivalent to bad faith use).
The Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
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 domain name <pentium.biz> be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant and that subsequent challenges under the STOP Policy against this domain SHALL NOT be permitted.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: July 3, 2002
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page