Crown Central Petroleum Corporation v.
International Newcastle
Claim Number: FA0205000114326
Complainant
is Crown Central Petroleum Corporation,
Baltimore, MD (“Complainant”) represented by Andrew Lapayowker.
Respondent is International
Newcastle, Miami, FL (“Respondent”).
The
domain name at issue is <crown.biz>,
registered with IHoldings.com, Inc.
d/b/a DotRegistrar.com.
On July 16,
2002, pursuant to STOP Rule 6(b), the Forum appointed James P. Buchele
as the single Panelist. 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.
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 May 17, 2002; the Forum
received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 20, 2002.
On
May 23, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of June 12,
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.
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
The
<crown.biz> domain name is identical to Complainant's CROWN mark.
Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the <crown.biz> domain
name.
Respondent
registered the <crown.biz> domain name in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns several trademark registrations
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for its CROWN mark,
including Registration Numbers 40,411; 911,167; 911,168; 1,464,013;
1,577,282. Complainant uses the mark in
commerce in relation to petroleum products, gas station services, lubricants
and retail services.
Respondent registered the disputed domain
name on March 27, 2002. Respondent
listed the domain name for sale in its registration information for the domain
name. For example, Respondent’s address
line reads, “FOR SALE at Domain Collection.com.”
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 that it has rights in the CROWN mark through registration and
use. Furthermore, Respondent’s <crown.biz>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s CROWN mark because it incorporates
Complainant’s entire mark.
The
Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
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”).
There is no evidence on record, and
Respondent has not come forward to prove that it has any trademarks or service
marks for CROWN anywhere in the world.
Therefore, Respondent has failed to establish that it has rights or
legitimate interests in 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).
Based on Respondent’s WHOIS information
advertising the <crown.biz> domain name for sale it can be
inferred that Respondent registered the domain name with the intent to sell
it. The sale of a domain name is not
considered to be a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to STOP
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See J. Paul Getty Trust v. Domain 4 Sale &
Co., FA 95262 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2000) (finding rights or legitimate
interests do not exist when one has made no use of the websites that are
located at the domain names at issue, other than to sell the domain names for
profit); see also Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding Respondent’s
conduct purporting to sell domain name suggests it has no legitimate use).
Respondent is known to this Panel as
International Newcastle and domaincollection.com, and there is no evidence that
Respondent is known by, or does business under any other name. Respondent has not come forward with
evidence, therefore Respondent has failed to establish that it is commonly
known as CROWN or <crown.biz> pursuant to STOP Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See CBS Broad., Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone,
D2000-0397 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has failed to
demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the <twilight-zone.net>
domain name since Complainant had been using the TWILIGHT ZONE mark since 1959); 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).
The Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶
4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Based on Respondent’s WHOIS information
it can be inferred that its primary purpose in registering <crown.biz>
was to sell the domain name for profit.
The registration of a domain name in order to sell, rent, or transfer
the domain name is considered to be registration and use in bad faith pursuant
to STOP Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Wembley Nat’l Stadium Ltd. v. Thomson,
D2000-1233 (WIPO Nov. 16, 2000) (finding bad faith based on the apparent
willingness of the Respondent to sell the domain name in issue from the outset,
albeit not at a price reflecting only the costs of registering and maintaining
the name); see also Microsoft
Corp. v. Mehrotra, D2000-0053 (WIPO Apr. 10, 2000) (finding bad faith where
that Respondent registered the domain name for the purpose of selling it, as
revealed by the name the Respondent chose for the registrant, “If you want this
domain name, please contact me”).
The Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶
4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under the Start-up Trademark Opposition
Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be hereby granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the
domain name <crown.biz> be transferred from Respondent to
Complainant.
James P. Buchele, Panelist
Dated: July 22, 2002
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page