Tomlinson Affiliate Services
Inc. v.
Claim Number: FA0801001138312
PARTIES
Complainant is Tomlinson Affiliate Services Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Christopher
D. Gabbert, of Ramsden & Lyons, LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <tomlinsonrealestate
PANEL
The undersigned, David H Tatham, 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
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (“the
Forum”) electronically on January 15, 2008;
the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 18, 2008
On January 16, 2008, Compana confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the <tomlinsonrealestate
On January 29, 2008, a
Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding,
setting a deadline of February 19, 2008 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 postmaster@tomlinsonrealestate
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 19, 2008.
An Additional Submission from Complainant was received and determined
by the Forum to be timely and complete on February 25, 2008
On March 3, 2008, an Additional Submission from Respondent, which it
called an Objection and Reply to Complainant’s Additional Submission, was
received and determined by the Forum to be timely and complete
On February 26, pursuant to requests by both
parties to have the dispute decided by a single member Panel, the Forum
appointed Mr
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant operates and provides Real Estate and Brokerage services
for all manner of real estate transactions under a number of affiliated and
related business names, including the names Tomlinson, Tomlinson Black, and
Tomlinson Real Estate Services, Inc
Complainant currently owns the corporate name and a service mark
registration of TOMLINSON BLACK
Complainant annexed to the Complaint copies of a number of Certificates
from the authorities in the States of Washington and
Complainant asserts that the above history demonstrates that it has
rights in the Tomlinson name and that it has built a reputation and a
distinctly recognizable product associated with the names Tomlinson and
Tomlinson Black
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the disputed domain name
<tomlinsonrealestate
As for having any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain
name, Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the name
‘Tomlinson’, that it is not one of Complainant’s licensees, that it is not
authorized to use the name, and that it does not nor is it licensed to provide
real estate services
As for bad faith, Complainant contends that Respondent is using the
disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a website displaying links
in competition with Complainant’s realty business
In addition, Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering and
using trademark related domain names in bad faith
B. Respondent
In its Response, Respondent contends that Complainant has not met
its burden of proving all the elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy
Identical or Confusingly Similar Mark
Although Complainant
refers to a federally registered trademark, Respondent points out that this mark
was actually cancelled on October 20, 2007 so it is no longer in force, and
that the failure to note this fact during the almost three month period from
cancellation to the filing of the Complaint can be attributed to either
incompetence or a desire to deliberately mislead
Respondent further points out that
Complainant is known as ‘Tomlinson Black’, that the now defunct federal
registration was held in the name of Tomlinson Black Affiliate Services, Inc
In the absence of a federally
registered mark, a Complainant must provide evidence that it has common law
trademark rights in order to prevail under this element of the Policy
Complainant
is known as Tomlinson Black, not Tomlinson alone, and there are hundreds of
people in the
Rights and Legitimate Interest
Respondent has used the disputed domain name to
provide a web portal which provides users with a search function as well as advertisements
provided through the Google Adsense program
Respondent
contends that Complainant has cited no authority or rationale to justify its
parasitic interference in the free exchange of information and opportunity
Bad Faith
Respondent
contends that, to prevail on a claim under this element of the Policy, a
Complainant must prove that the domain was both registered and is being used in
bad faith
Respondent contends that as there has been no showing of any inherent
distinctiveness to Complainant’s trade name, and having failed to proffer the
evidence necessary to establish this, there can be no claim of any targeting
since Complainant does not have an inherently distinctive mark
Respondent claims that a complainant must
proffer evidence to demonstrate that it specifically intended to confuse
consumers seeking out Complainant, but there has been no such proof on this
occasion
Complainant argues that Respondent has been
involved in a number of UDRP decisions in the past and, whilst it is true that
there have been a number of decisions resulting in transfers, a substantial number
of those were where Respondent consented to the transfer and did not argue the
point
Respondent is the registrant of thousands of domain names, which
consist of electronically registered generic words, such as <coolwritings
C. Additional Submissions
Both parties filed an Additional Submission which, in the case of the
Respondent was entitled an “Objection and reply to Complainant’s Additional
Submission”
Complainant
Complainant contends that Respondent is a notorious cybersquatter and
typosquatter who has been repeatedly found to have improperly used minor
variants of established trade or service marks for financial gain
Furthermore, although Respondent claims that it innocently registers
generic words and that the combination of Complainant’s name and the
description of the very business it provides is merely coincidental, both such
assertions are without merit
With regard to the trademark relied upon by Complainant, Complainant
confirms that its federal trademark registration has lapsed
Furthermore, Complainant alleges that it has acquired common law rights
in the use of the “Tomlinson Real Estate” name
·
Complainant
has been operating continuously as a group of partnerships in the real estate
service field since at least 1948
·
Its
companies have operated under the names of ‘Tomlinson Black Affiliate Services,
Inc
·
Complainant
has continuously and exclusively used the names ‘Tomlinson’ and ‘Tomlinson
Black’ for its services
·
Complainant
operates primarily in the northwest
·
Complainant
employs over 800 agents and staff, and is recognized as one of the top 50 real
estate producers in the
·
Complainant
has maintained a website for the last 15 years and it estimates that the cost
involved in creating, maintaining, and updating this site have exceeded $1
million
·
Complainant
has advertised its services through television, radio, and newspaper media for
approximately 30 years
·
Complainant
markets and advertises using the names ‘Tomlinson’ and ‘Tomlinson Black’ and
has extensively used these marks to distinguish its services from its
competitors
Attached to this Declaration were copies of Complainant’s advertising
budget for 2007 and an advertisement which is headed TOMLINSON in large letters
over the words “TomlinsonRealEstateGroup.com” and 3 columns listing the
telephone numbers of (presumably) the branch offices of ‘Tomlinson Black’,
‘Tomlinson Sotheby’s International Realty’ and ‘Coldwell Banker Tomlinson’
The Additional Submission goes on to assert that the names ‘Tomlinson’
and ‘Tomlinson Black’ have acquired a secondary meaning when used in conjunction
with real estate services and that the public has come to associate the name
‘Tomlinson’ with Complainant’s business
Respondent has asserted that Complainant is not known as ‘Tomlinson’ and
does not appear in the first 2 pages of a Google search
Despite respondent’s claim that it is doubtful whether Complainant could
ever establish a secondary meaning in the surname Tomlinson, Complainant points
to Decisions under the Policy finding rights in surnames
Respondent has not utilized the name ‘Tomlinson’ alone but in conjunction
with the term ‘real estate’ and Complainant contends that, in common usage,
this can only refer to Complainant’s business
Complainant refers to a case in which Respondent was again the
respondent where it was found that the use of a name as a web portal and advertising
did not constitute a bona fide offering
of goods or services, or a legitimate or fair use under the Policy. Azar Int’l Inc. v.
The combination of Complainant’s name and the generic description of
its business creates the intentional confusing similarity between Complainant’s
name and the disputed domain name
Respondent has not produced any evidence that its use of the disputed
domain name to redirect Internet users to competitors for a fee and providing a
search function is a bona fide offering
of services
On the question of bad faith, Complainant alleges that Respondent’s
claim that a complainant must prove actual knowledge of the respondent is
erroneous
Respondent
Respondent vigorously objected to
the filing of Complainant’s Additional Submission which, it claims, is beyond
the scope of the UDRP Rules
Commenting on the Additional
Submission, Respondent contends that Complainant’s argument is essentially this
– “We misled the Panel because we never bothered to follow up on the fact that
we no longer had a federally registered mark, but the Respondent is worse
What the Additional Submission failed to do is prove that Complainant
currently has common law trademark rights in its trade name
In addition, since Complainant’s federal registration was cancelled, it
is attempting to rely upon the long discredited “constructive notice” argument
PRELIMINARY ISSUE
Respondent has challenged the legitimacy of the Forum’s Supplemental
Rules, and Rule 7 in particular
The Forum’s first Supplemental
Rules were effective as from October 1, 2000 and 3 other versions were
published before the present Rules was adopted and became effective on February
1, 2006
It is true that there is no
specific provision in the Policy Rules for the filing of any Additional Submissions
although Panelists do have discretion to accept them if they are filed
The Panel in this case notes that most of the above conditions apply in
this case
In passing, the Panel also notes, following the above examination of
past Decisions, that Respondent’s claim that in a substantial number of these
it had consented to a transfer, is not factually accurate
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”
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;
(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.
Complainant originally claimed rights in its registration of the
trademark TOMLINSON BLACK at the USPTO
Both parties have accepted that, in the
absence of a registered trademark, common law rights – if proved – will satisfy
the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy
‘Tomlinson’ is not an uncommon surname, and
‘real estate’ is a common generic term
In the “WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on
Selected UDRP Questions” it is stated that in order to successfully assert
common-law or unregistered trademark rights, a complainant “must show that the name has become a distinctive identifier associated
with the complainant of its goods and services
In its Complaint, Complainant claimed to have
common law rights in ‘Tomlinson Real Estate’ and ‘Tomlinson Black’
In the Declaration by Complainant’s President
– which the Panel notes is not sworn – it is stated that Complainant makes exclusive use of the name
‘Tomlinson’
Consequently the Panel has decided that
Complainant has not established, to its satisfaction, that it has common law
rights in the name TOMLINSON by itself
Respondent may indeed be a serial
cybersquatter or typosquatter, as Complainant contends, and the evidence for
the latter description would certainly appear to point in that direction, but
that in itself is not enough
Consequently, since Complainant has failed at the first hurdle, the
Panel declines to analyze the other two elements of the Policy
DECISION
Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN
Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall DENIED and the Complaint DISMISSED
David H Tatham, Panelist
Dated: March 11, 2008
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration
Forum