American Wealth Alliance,
Inc. v. KB a/k/a Katarzyna Bieniek
Claim Number: FA0801001139762
PARTIES
Complainant is American Wealth Alliance, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Brian
A. Hall, 810 Cottageview Drive, Unit G-20, Traverse City, MI. Respondent is KB a/k/a Katarzyna Bieniek (“Respondent”), Nowy Dwor mazoweiki, 05-100,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <breedersclub.com>, registered with Key-Systems
Gmbh.
PANEL
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.
Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on January 23, 2008; the
National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 24, 2008.
On January 24, 2008, Key-Systems Gmbh confirmed by e-mail to the
National Arbitration Forum that the <breedersclub.com>domain
name is registered with Key-Systems Gmbh
and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Key-Systems
Gmbh has verified that Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems Gmbh 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 February 7, 2008, a
Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the
“Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of February 27, 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@breedersclub.com by
e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 27, 2008.
On March 3, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
BreedersClub.net has been using the BREEDERSCLUB mark since at least as
early as 2001. Complainant’s pet search
directory and services are well and favorably known throughout the
BreedersClub.net has built valuable goodwill and a strong reputation in
BREEDERSCLUB and all composite marks accompanying the mark. BreedersClub.net aggressively advertises its
products and services. As a result of
its expenditures of considerable sums of money on advertising and promotional
activity, BreedersClub.net has built the BREEDERSCLUB mark into the distinctive
identifier of the BreedersClub.net’s pet search product and services.
BREEDERSCLUB has become famous.
It has been cited in magazines, online blogs, and other
publications. As such, individuals and
other entities have come to recognize Complainant’s BREEDERSCLUB mark as the
distinctive identifier of its pet directory and advertising services.
Respondent’s Unauthorized Registration and
Use of BREEDERSCLUB.
For purposes of this Complaint, the earliest date in which Respondent’s
registration occurred is September 22, 2007, or the date on which the most
recent transfer of <breedersclub.com> to both a different
Registrar (Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. to Key-Systems GmbH) and different
Registrant (Kevin Chang to P-K0B173) occurred; this was more than 7 years after
Complainant registered <breedersclub.net>.
Respondent became the Registrant of <breedersclub.com> sometime
after September 21, 2007. Respondent has
not been the Registrant since <breedersclub.com>’s original
registration, nor has <breedersclub.com> been registered with the
same Registrar.
While <breedersclub.com>’s use did not begin until after
Complainant had registered and began using <breedersclub.net>, the
current registrant and Respondent’s use was the first that redirected <breedersclub.com>
to <puppyfind.com>.
Prior use of <breedersclub.com>began on April 14, 2001
with a website for ADDR Web Hosting and continued until December 30, 2004. Following the expiration of the domain, upon
information and belief, <breedersclub.com> was acquired at an
auction in 2005.
Respondent’s use of the Infringing Domain began at least 5 years after
BreedersClub.net had been using <breedersclub.net>, assuming the redirect
occurred in 2005, but more likely 6-7 years after Complainant’s first use of
BREEDERSCLUB. While the domain forward
may have started earlier than 2007, the archiving and cache tools available do
not reflect this.
The website found at <puppyfind.com> (referenced by the at-issue
domain name) competes with Complainant BreedersClub.net. In fact, <puppyfind.com> offers nearly
identical products and services as those offered by BreedersClub.net,
including, among other things, search tools to find puppies and information
about different breeds and breeders.
Most important of which, it includes a “Dog Breeder Directory.” Unsuspecting consumers looking for
Complainant’s well-known directory may be confused by Respondent’s imitation.
Complainant never authorized Respondent to register, let alone use <breedersclub.com>to
redirect to a direct competitor of Complainant, <puppyfind.com>. Respondent’s domain forwarding to
Complainant’s competitor continues as of the date of this filing.
Breedersclub.com is Identical to the BREEDERSCLUB Trademark in which
Complainant BreedersClub.net Has Rights. Complainant has common law
trademark rights in BREEDERSCLUB. BreedersClub.net’s
common law rights have accrued through its continuous and extensive use of the
BREEDERSCLUB mark on the Internet in connection with its pet-searching
directory and advertising services since February 2001.
BreedersClub.net has established secondary meaning in the mark
BREEDERSCLUB. This is true given the nature and extent of advertising as well as
consumer and media recognition. Not only
is Complainant’s business, BREEDERSCLUB mark, and website featured in numerous
publications, it is also highly ranked by various media outlets, as noted in
the background section above.
Since Complainant has been able to identify that <breedersclub.com>was
transferred to a new Registrant and a new Registrar multiple times since
Complainant’s registration and use of <breedersclub.net>, Complainant’s
rights long predate any rights Respondent would attempt to claim. Even if the effective date of Respondent’s
registration of the Infringing Domain dates back to 2005 when an auction
occurred, this is still 5 years after Complainant’s registration of
<breedersclub.net> and 4 years after Complainant’s first use of <breedersclub.net>
to house its pet related website. Thus,
it is impossible for the Respondent to have registered the at-issue domain name
before Complainant developed rights to BREEDERSCLUB.
Respondent’s <breedersclub.com> domain name is identical
to Complainant’s BREEDERSCLUB mark because the domain name fully incorporates
Complainant’s mark and merely adds the top-level domain “.com.” Respondent’s Infringing Domain is identical
to Complainant’s BREEDERSCLUB mark.
The Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in Respect of the
Domain Name breedersclub.com. Respondent has not been commonly known by the
at-issue domain name, and Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark
rights in BREEDERSCLUB. Complainant
could not identify anything showing that Respondent carries on its own business
as BREEDERSCLUB. In addition,
Complainant never authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to
use its BREEDERSCLUB mark or allowed Respondent to associate itself with
BreedersClub.net in any way.
Therefore, Respondent’s registration and use of the Infringing Domain
as a domain forward is not legitimate.
Respondent’s use of <breedersclub.com> is not in connection
with a bona fide offering of goods or
services.
Finally, as discussed above, although <breedersclub.com> was
created in the domain name registry prior to <breedersclub.net>, no
website appeared at <breedersclub.com> until after Complainant’s
<breedersclub.net> website was registered and functioning. Moreover, since the Respondent’s registration
was not earlier than September 21, 2007, when both the Registrar and Registrant
information changed Respondent’s rights to the domain name
<breedersclub.net> did not predate Complainant’s rights.
Respondent is using <breedersclub.com> to redirect
Internet users searching for Complainant to its <puppyfind.com> website
where it offers competing products and services,
Respondent has no rights in BREEDERSCLUB or a legitimate interest in
<breedersclub.com>.
The Domain Name Was Registered and Is Being Used in Bad Faith. ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(3); ICANN Policy ¶
4(a)(iii). Respondent registered and is
using the at-issue domain in bad faith primarily for the purpose of disrupting
Complainant’s business. Respondent is
intentionally attracting Internet users to a competitor’s website that offers
the same and similar products and services as those offered by the
Complainant. In doing so, Respondent
creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s BREEDERSCLUB mark as to
the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the redirected website
and the products and/or services available on that website,
<puppyfind.com>.
Respondent is using
Complainant’s BREEDERSCLUB mark to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s pet directory and advertising services. Respondent is simply trying to trick the
public into believing it is the Complainant and then redirecting to a
competitor’s site. In fact, Respondent
is causing confusion among Complainant’s prospective customers, as evidenced by
numerous phone calls from people that have noted that they tried to find
Complainant’s site but ended up on <puppyfind.com> as well as e-mails. Once an Internet user mistakenly types “.com”
instead of “.net” into her web browser, she is redirected the
<puppyfind.com>, which offers similar products and services. It does not matter that once the Internet
users are there they may recognize the unlikelihood of a business relationship
between the Complainant and the Respondent since the Respondent would have
already gained website traffic.
Respondent’s unauthorized and unapproved mis-direction of consumers
searching for BREEDERSCLUB products and services to a competitor’s website is
solely for the purpose of achieving commercial gain since users can purchase
items from <puppyfind.com>.
Taking into consideration that Complainant’s
well-established company name and BREEDERSCLUB mark is known throughout the
United States and Canada, the Respondent knew or should have known of the
Complainant’s trademark rights when it decided to redirect <breedersclub.com>
to a competitor of Complainant. Even
if Respondent did not have actual knowledge of Complainant prior to its
registration of the disputed domain name, Respondent can not escape the fact
that it had constructive notice, namely because of the Complainant’s prior
content on the <breedersclub.net> website before Respondent ever placed
any content on its <breedersclub.com> website. This constructive knowledge is sufficient to
support a finding of bad faith. Thus,
Respondent should have reasonably been aware of Complainant’s BREEDERSCLUB mark
not only because of its selection of the identical mark for its domain name,
but also because of the prior use.
Therefore, Respondent has registered and is
using the <breedersclub.com> domain name as misdirection in bad
faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent contends as follows:
The domain <breedersclub.com> is
generic. It is descriptive of a
category, and one the complainant did not originate. It is as generic as “SportsClub.com,”
“Chessclub.com,” “Socialclub.com,” “BoysClub.com,” etc.
As to the generic quality of the
Complainant’s domain -- its lack of a secondary meaning -- a quick Google
search reveals that hundreds if not thousands of breeders clubs exist in the
The Complainant has no trademark or service
mark whatsoever. Nor has the Complainant
applied for a trademark. There is no
possible way that Respondent could have been aware of a trademark that did not
exist. It is highly unlikely that the
Complainant would be granted a trademark for a generic term for which they have
not created a secondary meaning. The
Complainant didn't invent the term “Breeders Club” and thus has no special right
to it.
Respondent acquired the domain in September
2005. It is not tenable to claim that
Respondent could have known about a website that had no trademark or service
mark and no traffic of which to speak. That
the domain <breedersclub.net> was famous strains credulity.
“Puppyfind.com” is as much a breeders club as
the Complainant’s business is; they are in the same business. “Puppyfind.com”
is a bona fide offering of goods.
Respondent owns hundreds of generic
dog-related domains. We have been buying
generic dog-related domains since long before the Complainant went into
business in 2001. For now, our business
is to sell the traffic to dog related companies. At some point in the near future, however, we
hope to open our own site for dog lovers.
The at-issue domain name is not identical to
a trademark or service mark to which the Complainant has rights.
It is well established under the UDRP that
anyone can register a generic term and by doing so develops a legitimate
interest. Immediately before the Complainant was served, <breedersclub.com>
redirected to <puppyfind.com> as did all of Respondent’s dog related
domains like the ones listed above. Puppyfind.com
is a bona fide business that offers
listings of breeders. At the moment the
domains are parked at HitFarm while Respondent collect much needed statistics
which PuppyFind was unable to provide me with. The parking pages are also a bona fide use for generic domains and
provide links to bona fide businesses that are dog related.
Bad faith use and
registration. Before the
Complaint was filed, Respondent never heard of nor visited the site
<breederscub.net>. At the time the at-issue domain was purchased
<breedersclub.net> received no measurable traffic. The site was neither well known nor famous. Respondent was in the habit of buying generic
dog related domains long before the Complainant started their business. Respondent’s business is to sell traffic to
legitimate dog related businesses and has been selling traffic to
<puppyfind.com> for the past 4 years.
Respondent requests a finding of “Reverse
Domain Hijacking.”
FINDINGS
Complainant has common law trademark rights
in the mark BREEDERSCLUB.
The at-issue domain name resolves to a
website containing links to pet related services and products some of which may
be competitors of the Complainant.
The services of Respondent offered at its
website are similar to the services of Complainant and compete with
Complainant.
The Respondent uses Complainant’s trademark
as a trademark and not in a descriptive sense.
DISCUSSION
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 asserts common law rights in the
BREEDERSCLUB mark. Trademark
registration is not required for Complainant to establish rights in the
BREEDERSCLUB mark. See
The record contains evidence
of the extent that Complainant’s claimed mark has acquired secondary
meaning. Complainant establishes colorable common law
rights in the BREEDERSCLUB mark by showing that the mark has likely acquired
sufficient secondary meaning through continued commercial use. See Hiatt v. Pers. Fan & Official Site Builders : we build great sites, FA 881460 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (“[R]egistration with a trademark authority is
unnecessary under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) in instances where a mark has gained
secondary meaning through extensive commercial use and common law rights have
been established.”); see also S.A.
Bendheim Co., Inc. v. Hollander Glass, FA 142318 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13,
2003) (holding that the complainant established rights in the descriptive
RESTORATION GLASS mark through proof of secondary meaning associated with the
mark).
Therefore, Complainant has trademark rights in
BREEDERSCLUB sufficient to maintain the instant action under the UDRP. See Stellar Call Ctrs. Pty Ltd. v. Bahr, FA 595972 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Dec. 19, 2005) (finding that the complainant established common law
rights in the STELLAR CALL CENTRES mark because the complainant demonstrated
that its mark had acquired secondary meaning); see also Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law rights in a mark where its use was
continuous and ongoing, and secondary meaning was established).
Respondent’s <breedersclub.com> domain
name is identical to Comlainant’s BREEDERSCLUB mark pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(i). The addition of the generic
top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” or “net” are inmaterial to the inquiry. See Abt Elecs., Inc. v. Ricks, FA 904239
(Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (“The Panel also finds that Respondent’s <abt.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s ABT mark since
addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) is irrelevant when conducting a
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.).
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy
Complainant must first make out a prima facie showing that Respondent
lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The
threshold for such showing is low. See Starwood Hotels & Resorts
Worldwide, Inc. v. Samjo CellTech.Ltd, FA 406512 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9,
2005). Once a prima facie case is
established, the burden then shifts to Respondent who must demonstrate that it
nevertheless has rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name.
Complainant contends that it did not authorize Respondent to use the <breedersclub.com>domain
name. Respondent is neither affiliated with, nor commonly known as,
BREEDERSCLUB. Complainant also asserts that Respondent has no legitimate
business use for the domain name.
Therefore, Complainant has satisfied its light burden.
In support of its position Respondent claims to be using the <breedersclub.com>
domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or
services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). According to Respondent, Respondent provides
Internet traffic for dog related businesses by redirecting users to another domain name. Respondent asserts that the at-issue mark is
generic in nature and therefore Respondent has legitimate rights or interest
with respect to the domain name. Numerous
panels have held that a Respondent may have legitimate rights and interest in a
generic or descriptive domain name. Citations
omitted.
BREEDERSCLUB does not describe the business of the Respondent. On investigation by the Panel and contrary to
the Response, <breedersclub.com> now resolves to a website
with a homepage entitled: “Welcome to breedersclub.com.” Accessing this website causes one or more
pop-up advertisements to appear that are wholly unrelated to dogs. The <breedersclub.com> homepage
contains categorized links to sponsoring websites and essentially no other
content. Some of the referenced websites
appear to be in competition with the Complainant, but are not necessarily
described by the at-issue domain name.
The links presented are not all to “breeders,” or to “breeder clubs,” or
“clubs” but rather to an array of pet related interests including birdcages,
pet medicine and insurance.
The Panel concludes that the at-issue domain name is only tenuously
related to the content listed on the Respondent’s website and further that
Respondent uses the domain name in a trademark sense; that is to identify the
source of its services (a listing service for pet related links) rather than to
describe the nature of the service offered or content of the website. On the other hand, the Complainant shows that
it has trademark rights in the BREEDERSCLUB mark.
Respondent is admittedly steeped in the acquisition of domain names. Its business model depends on the domain names
it registers and uses to have some innate draw or attraction to those wandering
the Internet in search of, in the instant case, pet related interests. It is beyond the pale to assert, as Respondent
does, that Respondent was unaware, at the time of registration and at the
creation of its website, that the owner of
<breedersclub.net> would likely claim trademark rights in
the BREEDERSCLUB mark.
In Advanced Drivers Education Products
& Training, Inc. v. MDNH, Inc., FA 567039 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 10, 2005), the panel concluded
that the respondent’s domain name was not used in the trademark sense, but was
“a descriptor of the site’s intended content or theme,” and therefore the complainant
failed to prove that the respondent lacked any rights or legitimate interests
in the disputed domain name. However
unlike the respondent in Advanced Drivers, the respondent in our case is
not using the <breedersclub.com>domain name in any purely
descriptive sense. Here the domain name
is used as a trademark to identify the source of the website rather than its
content.
Respondent uses the domain name as a trademark, rather than for any
descriptive value it might have. As
such, Respondent’s registration and use of the at-issue domain name is not a
legitimate or bona fide use of the domain name and Respondent does not
have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) to use against the interests of the
Complainant is. See Lotte Berk Method
Ltd. v. ATTN: lotteberkmethod.com, FA 667767 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8,
2006).
Respondent registered and used the at-issue
domain name after Complainant had been trading under the name BREEDERSCLUB for
several years. As noted above Respondent
registered the domain with either actual or constructive knowledge that the
Complainant was using the mark in a trademark sense. It created its website in
light thereof.
As also noted above, the at-issue domain name
is identical to Complainant’s claimed mark. The Panel finds that the at-issue domain name
is likely to cause confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or
endorsement of Respondent’s website under ¶ Policy 4(b)(iv). The website referenced by the at-issue domain
name references businesses that may compete with the Complainant and is itself
commercial in nature and only tangentially related to breeding. Such is evidence of bad faith. See Bank of Am. Corp. v.
Respondent registered the domain name after
the Complainant had been using the name for a number of years. Respondent used the at-issue domain name
against the interests of the Complainant. The Panel finds above that although Respondent
claims otherwise, it is more likely than not that Respondent had actual
knowledge that the Complainant conducted business as BREEDERSCLUB prior to
registration and use of the domain name.
It is also more likely than not that the attraction of adding the
particular domain name to Respondent’s bank of domain names was because of its
trademark value not because of any descriptive quality that the domain name
might have. Therefore, the Panel again concludes that Respondent’s intent in
registering and using the at-issue domain name was to “attempted to attract,
for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent’s] web site … by creating a
likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source,
sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [its] web site or location or of a
product or service on [its] web site or location.” Policy 4(b)(iv).
Given the forgoing the Complaint demonstrates
that Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith.
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy,
the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <breedersclub.com>domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: March 17, 2008
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum