PPG Industries Inc v. Swarthmore
Associates LLC
Claim Number: FA0204000112552
Complainant
is PPG Industries Inc, Pittsburgh,
PA (“Complainant”). Respondent is Swarthmore Associates LLC, Pacific Palisades,
CA (“Respondent”).
The
domain name at issue is <ppg.biz>,
registered with PSI-Japan, Inc.
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.
Judge
Harold Kalina (Ret.) 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 28, 2002; the Forum
received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 21, 2002.
On
May 31, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of June 20,
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 17, 2002, pursuant to STOP Rule 6(b), the Forum
appointed Judge Harold Kalina (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.
Transfer
of the domain name from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <ppg.biz> domain name is identical to Complainant’s
registered PPG mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in respect of the <ppg.biz>
domain name.
3. Respondent registered the <ppg.biz> domain name in bad
faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant owns U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office Reg. No. 1,735,888 for the PPG mark registered on December 1,
1992. Complainant operates from numerous websites reflecting its PPG mark,
including: <ppg.com>, <ppg.net>, <ppg.org>, <ppg.us>
and <ppg.info>.
Respondent registered <ppg.biz> on March 27, 2002
during NeuLevel’s STOP Registration Procedure. Complainant’s investigation
failed to reveal any trademark applications or registrations listed for
Respondent in association with the PPG mark or <ppg.biz> 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 rights in the PPG mark through registration with the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office and subsequent continuous use of the mark.
Respondent’s
<ppg.biz> domain name is
identical to Complainant’s registered PPG mark. Respondent’s domain name
emulates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and deviates only with the
inconsequential addition of the gTLD “.biz.”
Accordingly,
the Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Respondent has failed to submit a
Response in this proceeding. Therefore, it is presumed that Respondent lacks
rights and legitimate interests in the <ppg.biz>
domain name. See Canadian Imperial Bank
of Commerce v. D3M Virtual Reality Inc., AF-0336 (eResolution Sept. 23,
2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where no such right or
interest was immediately apparent to the Panel and Respondent did not come
forward to suggest any right or interest it may have possessed).
Furthermore, because Respondent failed to
submit a Response in this proceeding, the Panel is permitted to make all
reasonable inferences in favor of Complainant. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the
absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of
the Complaint”).
Respondent has yet to develop a purpose
for the disputed domain name and has not provided any evidence showing any
demonstrable preparations to use <ppg.biz>
in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to
STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent has the burden of producing credible
evidence that it registered <ppg.biz>
for a legitimate purpose. Respondent’s failure to support its registration
with evidence signifying some right or legitimate interest in the disputed
domain name implies that Respondent has none. See Woolworths plc. v. Anderson, D2000-1113 (WIPO Oct. 10, 2000)
(finding that absent evidence of preparation to use the domain name for a
legitimate purpose, the burden of proof lies with the Respondent to demonstrate
that it has rights or legitimate interests); see also Gene Logic Inc. v. Bock, FA 103042 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar.
4, 2002) (finding that in order to show rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name Respondent must establish with valid evidence “a course of
business under the name, or at least significant preparation for use of the
name prior to learning of the possibility of a conflict” with an IP Claimant).
Complainant asserts that it carefully
checked trademark and domain name registries for any person or business using
the PPG mark as part of their names. Complainant’s investigation failed to
produce any evidence that Respondent is commonly known by its <ppg.biz>
domain name pursuant to STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Complainant also failed to
locate any information that would suggest Respondent is the owner or
beneficiary of a trademark or service mark that is identical to the disputed
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 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 STOP
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The criteria specified in ¶ 4(b) of the
STOP Policy does not represent an exhaustive list of bad faith evidence. The
Panel must take into consideration the totality of circumstances in order to
determine if Respondent registered or used the domain name in bad faith. See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v.
Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (finding that in
determining if a domain name has been registered in bad faith, the Panel must
look at the “totality of circumstances”); see
also Cellular One Group v. Brien, D2000-0028 (WIPO Mar. 10, 2000) (finding
that the criteria specified in 4(b) of the Policy is not an exhaustive list of
bad faith evidence).
Due to the nature of NeuLevel’s STOP IP
claim registration procedure and Complainant’s listing on the Principal
Register of the USPTO, Respondent had constructive notice of Complainant’s
preexisting rights in the PPG mark. Respondent’s subsequent registration of the
infringing <ppg.com> domain
name, despite knowledge of Complainant’s preexisting rights, represents bad
faith registration 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 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.
Having
established all three elements required under the STOP Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief should be hereby GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ppg.biz> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to
Complainant, and that subsequent challenges under the STOP Policy against this
domain name SHALL NOT be permitted.
Judge
Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: July 30, 2002
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page