Kraft Pizza Company and Kraft Foods Holdings, Inc. v. Stealth Commerce a/k/a Telmex Management Services a/k/a Lost in Space, SA a/k/a Drevil
Claim Number: FA0205000113289
Complainant is Kraft Pizza Company, Northfield, IL (“Complainant”) represented by Mark V.B. Partridge, of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson. Respondent is Stealth Commerce a/k/a Telmex Management Services a/k/a Lost in Space SA a/k/a Drevil, Majorca, British Virgin Islands (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <kraftpizzacompany.com>, registered with Intercosmos Media Group.
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 submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on May 7, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 8, 2002.
On May 8, 2002, Intercosmos Media Group confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <kraftpizzacompany.com> is registered with Intercosmos Media Group and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Intercosmos Media Group has verified that Respondent is bound by the Intercosmos Media Group 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 May 9, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of May 29, 2002 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 email@example.com by e-mail.
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 13, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch as 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 Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent.” Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
The <kraftpizzacompany.com> domain name is identical to Complainant's KRAFT PIZZA COMPANY mark and confusingly similar to Complainant’s KRAFT mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Respondent failed to submit a Response.
Complainant does business under the KRAFT PIZZA COMPANY mark. Furthermore, Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office including: Reg. Nos. 554,187; 670,330; 801,424; 1,052,526; and 1,690,114. Complainant has invested millions of dollars in advertising and promoting its KRAFT mark.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 17, 2002. Respondent is using the disputed domain name for an adult escort and sexual content website. Furthermore, Complainant’s investigation has revealed that Respondent has registered over 471 infringing domain names under the name “Stealth,” and is currently offering 2,736 domain names for sale under its alias “Drevil.” Respondent has no license to use Complainant’s mark.
Paragraph 15(a) of 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.”
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 Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.
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; and
(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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it has rights to the KRAFT PIZZA COMPANY mark because it has done business under the name continuously. Furthermore, Complainant has established that it has rights to the KRAFT mark through numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Respondent’s <kraftpizzacompany.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s common law KRAFT PIZZA COMPANY mark because the omission of spaces and the addition of a top-level domain name are irrelevant when determining whether a mark is identical. See Fed’n of Gay Games, Inc. v. Hodgson & Scanlon, D2000-0432 (WIPO June 28, 2000) (finding that the domain name <gaygames.com> is identical to Complainant's registered trademark GAY GAMES).
Moreover, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s KRAFT mark because it incorporates the entirety of Complainant’s mark and merely adds the generic terms “pizza” and “company” that describe the business Complainant is engaged in. The addition of generic terms that describe Complainant’s business to Complainant’s mark does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity. See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownwell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the Respondent’s domain name combines the Complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the Complainant’s business); see also Marriott Int’l v. Café au lait, FA 93670, (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that the Respondent’s domain name <marriott-hotel.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MARRIOTT mark).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has failed to come forward with a Response and 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 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 is using a confusingly similar domain name in order to divert Internet users interested in Complainant to Respondent’s website. Respondent’s website features pornography and an escort service. This type of use is not considered to be a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Nat’l Football League Prop., Inc. v. One Sex Entm't. Co., D2000-0118 (WIPO Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names <chargergirls.com> and <chargergirls.net> where the Respondent linked these domain names to its pornographic website); see also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that infringing on another's well-known mark to provide a link to a pornographic site is not a legitimate or fair use).
There is no evidence and Respondent has not come forward to establish that it is commonly known as KRAFT PIZZA COMPANY or <kraftpizzacompany.com>. Therefore Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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); see also Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc., FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in domain names because it is not commonly known by Complainant’s marks and Respondent has not used the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent is using a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous KRAFT mark and identical to Complainant’s common law KRAFT PIZZA COMPANY mark in order to attract Internet users to its commercial pornography website. This type of use is considered to be in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See MatchNet plc. v. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000) (finding that the association of a confusingly similar domain name with a pornographic website can constitute bad faith); see also Ty, Inc. v. O.Z. Names, D2000-0370 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding that absent contrary evidence, linking the domain names in question to graphic, adult-oriented websites is evidence of bad faith).
Furthermore, based on the fame of Complainant’s KRAFT mark it can be inferred that Respondent had notice of Complainant’s mark when it registered <kraftpizzacompany.com>. Therefore, Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, despite this notice is evidence of bad faith registration. See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration); see also Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) (finding that "[ w]here an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be similar to another, one can infer an intent to confuse").
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be hereby granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name <kraftpizzacompany.com> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: June 17, 2002
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page