Arche Nova Marvin Entholt Filmproduktion v. Beanmills, Inc.
Claim Number: FA0204000112508
Complainant is Marvin Entholt Arche Nova Marvin Entholt Filmproduktion, Munich, GERMANY (“Complainant”). Respondent is Beanmills Inc., Carson City, NV, USA (“Respondent”) represented by Stephen L. Anderson, of Anderson & Shippey.
The domain name at issue is <film.biz>, registered with Registrars Asia Pty. Ltd.
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.
John J. Upchurch 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 27, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 6, 2002.
On May 20, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of June 10, 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”).
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 5, 2002.
Complainant’s Additional Submission was received after the deadline, without the required fee. Therefore, the Forum does not consider Complainant’s Submission to be in compliance with STOP Supp. Rule 7.
On July 19, 2002, pursuant to STOP Rule 6(b), the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch as the single Panelist.
Transfer of the domain name from Respondent to Complainant.
1. Complainant has been active in the film business since 1990.
2. Respondent has no rights in the mark reflected in the <film.biz> domain name.
3. The domain name was registered in bad faith.
1. The Complainant does not have a registered trademark in “FILM.”
2. The Complainant lacks common law rights in generic and descriptive term “FILM”.
3. Respondent has a legitimate interest in the domain name.
4. Respondent has the right to use a generic and descriptive term.
5. The Complainant has failed to show that <film.biz> was registered in bad faith.
The Panel has determined that Complainant does not have rights in the mark and that the Complaint should be dismissed. The Panel further has determined that Respondent does have legitimate interests in the disputed 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.”
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.
Further, the Complainant has failed to provide any evidence that “FILM” has become identified in the minds of the public with the Complainant to a sufficient extent to confer on it any “rights” within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Holiday-rentals.com Ltd. v. Hall, D2002-0200 (WIPO May 14, 2002). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant does not have rights in the mark. The Complaint is dismissed.
In Shirmax Retail Ltd. v. CES Marketing, Inc., AF-0104 (eResolution Mar. 20, 2000), the Panel held:
“Where the domain name and trademark in question are generic – and in particular where they comprise no more than a single, short, common word – the rights/interests inquiry is more likely to favor the domain name owner. The ICANN Policy is very narrow in scope; it covers only clear cases of “cybersquatting” and “cyberpiracy,” not every dispute that might arise over a domain name. See e.g., Second Staff Report on Implementation Documents for the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (Oct. 24, 1999), http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-second-staff-report-24oct99.htm, para.4.1(c).”
See also Gen. Mach. Prods Co. v. Prime Domains, FA 92531 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 26, 2000); Car Toys, Inc. v. Informa Unlimited, Inc., FA 93682 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 20, 2000); CRS Tech. Corp. v. Condenet, Inc. FA 93547 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 28, 2000); Perriocone v. Hirst, FA 95104 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 1, 2000); Zero Int’l Holding GmbH v. Beyonet Servs., D2000-0161 (WIPO May 12, 2000); Primedia Special Interest Pubs., Inc. v. Treadway, D2000-0752 (WIPO, Aug. 21, 2000); First Am. Funds, Inc. v. Ult.Search, Inc., D2000-1840 (WIPO Apr. 20, 2001).
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: August 20, 2002
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page