BRIO Corporation v. Spruce Caboose a/k/a
Brio is Overpriced and Arrogant Fascists
Claim Number: FA0205000114419
PARTIES
Complainant
is BRIO Corporation, Germantown, WI
(“Complainant”) represented by David R
Cross, of Quarles & Brady LLP. Respondent is Spruce Caboose, Davis, CA (“Respondent”) represented by Daniel
Sobottka.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <brio-train.com>,
<brio-toy.com>, <brio-sucks.com>, <briosucks.com>, and <brioexposed.com>, ("Domain Names")
registered with DotRegistrar.com.
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.
Clive
Elliott as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on May 28, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint
on May 28, 2002.
On
June 3, 2002 , DotRegistrar.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain names <brio-train.com>,
<brio-toy.com>, <brio-sucks.com>, <briosucks.com>, and <brioexposed.com> are registered
with DotRegistrar.com and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the
names. DotRegistrar.com has verified
that Respondent is bound by the DotRegistrar.com 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
June 19, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of July 9,
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 postmaster@brio-train.com, postmaster@brio-toy.com, postmaster@brio-sucks.com,
postmaster@briosucks.com, and postmaster@brioexposed.com by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 9, 2002.
Complainant
submitted a timely Additional Submission on July 12, 2002.
On July 23, 2002 pursuant to Complainant’s request to
have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Clive Elliott
as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
BRIO AB, a corporation organized under the laws of Sweden, owns
U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,277,165, issued May 8, 1984, for BRIO for use
in connection with toys and games. BRIO AB owns additional U.S. trademark
registrations and applications for the BRIO mark for different goods. The BRIO trademark is also registered in
other countries, including Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland and the
United Kingdom. Complainant BRIO
Corporation is BRIO AB’s exclusive licensee for use and enforcement of the BRIO
mark in the United States.
The BRIO name is well-known for the high quality and durability of
the toys. The BRIO trademark was first
used internationally at least as early as 1932, with formal introduction to the
United States in 1953. BRIO toys
include its world-renowned tabletop wooden labyrinth, a growing line of plush
toys for younger children, the BRIO Waterway system of boats and water-filled
channels, and the goods at issue in this Complaint, the BRIO wooden railway
system.
The Domain Names all incorporate the registered BRIO trademark
along with generic or descriptive terms.
Furthermore, two of the domain names incorporate terms commonly
associated with the BRIO trademark: “toy” and “train.” These references reinforce the connection
between the domain names and the famous BRIO trademark.
Through its <sprucecaboose.com> and <woodtrain.com>
web sites, Respondent is a retailer of wooden trains allegedly compatible with
BRIO wooden trains. Respondent does not
sell authentic BRIO trains, nor has it been an authorized BRIO retailer in the
past.
BRIO Corporation takes no issue with Respondent’s current textual
use of the BRIO mark on its <sprucecaboose.com> site to note the
compatibility of its wooden trains and track with BRIO’s wooden train play
sets, to the extent that such statements are accurate and not misleading.
Similar to
<brio-train.com>, the <brio-toy.com> domain name implies
the same kind of connection to BRIO Corporation and its official
<briotoy.com> domain name and web site.
This name is currently used to display an advertisement for a domain
name registration service called “Dyno Domains”. BRIO Corporation alleges that Dyno Domains is in fact another
business owned by Respondent, based on the identity between the contact information
in the WHOIS pages for <dyno-domains.com> and the registrations at issue
here.
The other
three domain names at issue in this case do not imply the same connection to
BRIO Corporation’s commercial activities.
In addition
to this Respondent also uses its “criticism” domain names and <brio-toy.com> to feature a series of
links titled “Fun With Brio.” The three
separate links at the bottom of each site all lead to the <brio-train.com> web site, as
revealed by the HTML source code of each site, and then to Spruce Caboose’s
site via the prominent, hyperlinked advertisement for Spruce Caboose on the
<brio-train.com> site. It is asserted that these domain names are
diverting Internet traffic intended for BRIO Corporation’s web sites to
Respondent’s businesses.
The Complainant asserts the Respondent has engaged in repeated
acts of bad faith with respect to the <brio-train.com>
domain name. It states that as early as
September 2000, Spruce Caboose used the <brio-train.com> and <brio-compatible.com> names to mirror
the content of its <sprucecaboose.com> and <woodtrain.com> web
sites, using the BRIO trademark to attract consumers to a directly competitive
product. Complainant submits that in
addition to this “initial interest confusion,” Respondent’s sites each
contained misleading links labeled “Brio Train Home Page” and “Brio Train
Questions and Comments”
Complainant states that it contacted Respondent in May 2001
regarding its registration and use of the <brio-train.com> domain name and the misleading content on its
web sites and demanded that Respondent correct the misleading content of its
web sites and transfer the <brio-train.com>
registration.
In response to these demands Respondent amended the links on its
web sites by adding the word
“compatible” after the word BRIO. Respondent also claimed that it had
transferred the <brio-train.com>
domain name to Brio Technology, Inc., a computer software design company and
that it no longer had the capacity to transfer the <brio-train.com> domain name to BRIO Corporation.
BRIO Corporation then found out that Respondent had not
transferred the <brio-train.com>
domain name to Brio Technology. It is
asserted that in discussions with BRIO Corporation’s counsel, Brio Technology
disclaimed any knowledge of or control over <brio-train.com> and agreed to cooperate with BRIO Corporation in
resolving this matter. It is also
asserted that BRIO Corporation learned that Respondent falsified the WHOIS data
for the <brio-train.com>
registration, showing Brio Technology as registrant and copying certain elements
of Brio Technology’s own WHOIS data into the <brio-train.com> record.
On closer inspection, however, it is evident that the e-mail addresses
and DNS hosts in this false WHOIS data were all located at
<woodtrain.com>, one of Respondent’s domains.
BRIO Corporation again wrote to Respondent demanding an immediate
transfer of the <brio-train.com>
registration. Respondent again modified
the WHOIS data for <brio-train.com>,
this time adopting the name “Brio Is Overpriced and Arrogant Fascists” (sic).
Respondent then updated the content of the <brio-train.com> web site to recount its correspondence with and
opinion of BRIO Corporation. Respondent
registered the additional domain names at issue, each incorporating the BRIO
mark.
Finally, it is stated that the Respondent has recently revised the
<brio-train.com> site to
feature a large graphical advertisement for its Spruce Caboose web site. The graphic is also a hyperlink to the
<sprucecaboose.com> web site. It
is said that this change re-establishes the commercial use of the <brio-train.com> site to divert
traffic to a direct competitor of BRIO Corporation.
B. Respondent
Respondent is a retailer of
wooden trains.
Respondent states it
originally registered just one of the domain names in dispute at the time that
Complainant's lawyers first contacted Respondent on June 11, 2001. That is, the domain name <brio-train.com>. Respondent claims that before being contacted it had used
this domain name, and many others, to point to its main site, <sprucecaboose.com>, which it used
to market wooden trains. Respondent
states that domain names such as <brio-train.com> etc. were useful in keyword weighting for search
engines. Respondent says it ceased this
after receiving a letter from Complainant.
At this time Respondent claims to have changed ownership of this domain
name to that of Brio Technology.
The Respondent states that
after the Complainant’s next letter on July10, 2001, it became clear that
nothing would satisfy them except to hand over the domain name
<brio-train.com>. At this point,
Respondent says it began pointing the domain name to a protest website, as it
still remains today. Respondent says,
all names in dispute point to the same page and threatens the page will be
updated if the Complainant's abuse continues.
The Respondent also accepts
that upon receiving the letter from the Complainant and changing its first
Domain Name to a so called protest/free-speech site, Respondent registered the
following domains:<brioexposed.com>,
<brio-toy.com>, <brio-sucks.com>, <briosucks.com>. It states that
these were automatically parked for a few months, as is typical for a new
domain name before they can be developed.
The Respondent alleges the
Complainant has delayed unacceptably long before bringing its Complaint, that
the word "Brio" is not unique to the Complainant, and that this is a
case of reverse hijacking and bad faith harassment. Finally, it contends that its sites are "strictly non-commercial"
and the key issue is not about domain names but "free speech".
C. Additional Submissions
Complainant’s
Additional Submission deals with the allegation of delay/laches. It is argued
that these issues are not applicable as the Respondent altered its sites from
time to time and conduct that the Complainant could live with became
unacceptable later.
The
second issue involves the Respondent’s reliance on the findings in Victoria’s Secret v. Nat’l Rag, FA 96492
(Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 3, 2001). This is discussed below, under the bad faith
head.
FINDINGS
For the reasons given below the
Complainant succeeds in its action.
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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant
asserts rights in the BRIO mark and provides evidence of a registered trademark
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the mark (Reg. No.
1,277,165). Complainant also provides
evidence of worldwide trademark registration for its BRIO mark in countries
such as Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States.
Complainant
uses its mark in connection with toys and games and claims that the BRIO mark
is “exceptionally well-known for the high quality and durability of the
toys.” Complainant notes that the BRIO
mark was first used internationally around 1932 and was introduced to the
United States in 1953.
Complainant
asserts that Respondent’s <brio-train.com>
and <brio-toy.com> domain
names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BRIO mark. Complainant contends that the addition of
the words “train” and “toy” do not create a distinct domain name because the
words have a relation to Complainant’s business. Complainant claims that these two words are “commonly associated
with the BRIO trademark.” 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 Brown & Bigelow,
Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that the
<hoylecasino.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
HOYLE mark, and that the addition of “casino,” a generic word describing the
type of business in which Complainant is engaged, does not take the disputed domain
name out of the realm of confusing similarity); 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).
Furthermore,
the Panel may find that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s BRIO mark in the <brio-sucks.com>, <briosucks.com>, and <brioexposed.com> domain names
renders the names confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. The words “sucks” and “exposed” in the domain
name fail to detract from the dominating presence of Complainant’s BRIO
mark. See Vivendi Universal v.
Sallen, D2001-1121 (WIPO Nov. 7, 2001) (finding the domain name
<vivendiuniversalsucks.com> was confusingly similar to Complainant's
VIVENDI UNIVERSAL mark, because non-english speakers would associate the domain
name with the owner of the trademark); see
also ADT Services AG v. ADT Sucks.com, D2001-0213 (WIPO Apr. 23, 2001) (exploring the
difference of opinion among Panels on "Sucks" domain name disputes
and concluding that use of the "sucks" suffix does not defeat
Complainant's confusing similarity argument).
The
Panel acknowledges the existence of a line of decisions that differ on the
question of whether “sucks” domains are confusing, whether inherently or
otherwise. This Panel prefers the view that each case turns on its facts and
for reasons given below it finds that Respondent (a small but
direct competitor in the
wooden toy market) has
gone beyond mere criticism and complaint and that its conduct is likely to
create confusion in the minds of at least some consumers.
Accordingly,
this ground is made out.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
As
noted above, Respondent is a direct competitor in the wooden toy market and
makes wooden trains that are compatible with BRIO wooden trains. Complainant asserts that it currently allows
Respondent to use the BRIO mark to notify consumers that Respondent’s products
are compatible with Complainant’s goods.
However, Complainant never authorized Respondent to use the BRIO mark in
any of the domain names, especially the <brio-train.com>
domain name. Complainant claims that
Respondent, as a competitor, has no rights to the <brio-train.com> domain name because it is so closely
connected to Complainant.
Complainant
claims that Respondent uses the Domain Names in connection with a website that
advertises for “Dyno Domains.”
Complainant claims that “Dyno Domains” is a business owned by
Respondent, which provides domain name registration services. Therefore, the Panel may find that
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to advertise its own unrelated
business is not an offering of bona fide goods and services pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(c)(i), nor does it represent a noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R
& S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that
Respondent’s commercial use of the domain name to confuse and divert Internet
traffic is not a legitimate use of the domain name); see also Big Dog Holdings, Inc. v. Day, FA 93554 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Mar. 9, 2000) (finding no legitimate use when Respondent was diverting
consumers to its own website by using Complainant’s trademarks); see also MSNBC Cable, LLC v. Tysys.com,
D2000-1204 (WIPO Dec. 8, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in
the famous MSNBC mark where Respondent attempted to profit using the
Complainant’s mark by redirecting Internet traffic to its own website).
There
is no evidence on the record that suggests Respondent is commonly known by any
of the disputed domain names or any variation thereof in connection with the
BRIO mark. Therefore, Respondent does
not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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 a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark).
Previous Panels have commented at some length on the legal
implications of "Sucks" sites.
An example is Leonard Cheshire Found. v. Darke, D2001-0131 (WIPO), which related
to a rather virulent criticism site run by a disenchanted ex-employee. The
decision states:
“The situation with regard to "Sucks" sites is
instructive. It is now well accepted that "Sucks" has entered the
vernacular as a word loaded with criticism. There is reference to this in the
"wallmartcanadasucks.com" case (Wall-Mart Stores, Inc, v.
"wallmartcandasucks.com" and Kenneth J Harvey (Case no D2000-1104)
There was also the Panelist's comment, when looking at the legitimacy of the
Respondent’s site:
"Thus whether wallmartcanadasucks is effective
criticism of Wall-Mart, whether it is in good taste, whether it focuses on the
right issues, all are immaterial; the only question is whether it is criticism
or parody rather than free-riding on another’s trademark".
The American Restatement (Third - Unfair Competition)
recognizes the balance that needs to be struck between the right of criticism
and the rights of a trademark owner:
"One who uses a designation that resembles the
trademark, trade name, collective mark or certification mark of another, not in
a manner that is likely to associate the other’s mark with the goods, services,
or business of the actor, but rather to comment on, criticize, ridicule,
parody, or disparage the other or the other’s goods, services business, or
mark, is subject to liability without proof of the likelihood of confusion only
if the actor’s conduct meets the requirements of a cause of action for
defamation, invasion of privacy, or injurious falsehood".
The Respondent is entitled to a degree of personal freedom
of expression, provided it is otherwise lawful and subject of course to the
Complainant’s legal right to seek to restrain such expression by other means.
Once again however, we have to focus on the domain name issue and the wording
of the Policy. As stated in the Wal-Mart case (supra) "In domain name
disputes it is critical whether the accused domain itself signifies parodic or
critical purposes, as opposed to imitation of trademark."
As
noted above, Respondent is a competitor of Complainant. What is significant in
this case is that the Respondent goes further than merely criticizing the
Complainant (which is not per se objectionable at law). Respondent takes the
criticism one step further. It uses, in conjunction with the said “Sucks”
sites, its name and logo accompanied by the prominent statement “Don’t waste
your money on Brio when there ARE better choices out there”.
The
purpose seems clear – criticize the competition and get consumers to switch to
the Respondent's product. In the Panel’s view such conduct is not saved by any
of the exemptions in the Policy and is not indicative of a legitimate interest
or right.
Accordingly,
this ground is made out.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant
asserts that Respondent has a history of frustrating its business. Complainant contends that Respondent
registered <brio-train.com>
and <brio-compatible.com> as early as September 2000. Complainant notes that Respondent used these
domain names to link to its <sprucecaboose.com> website, where Respondent
sold products in competition with Complainant.
After Complainant repeatedly contacted Respondent about the infringing
use of the Domain Names, Respondent stopped this specific diversionary
use. Complainant contends that
Respondent failed to transfer the <brio-train.com>
domain name following notification that it was going to transfer the domain
name to Complainant.
The
Panel may find that Respondent’s aforementioned behavior and current
registration/use of the disputed domain names constitute an opportunistic
attempt to trade on the goodwill of the BRIO mark. Therefore, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain
names in bad faith. See Chanel,
Inc. AG v. Designer Exposure, D2000-1832 (WIPO Feb. 15, 2001) (finding that
Respondent's registration and use of the famous CHANEL mark suggests
opportunistic bad faith).
Since
Complainant and Respondent are in direct competition with one another, the
Panel may find that Respondent registered the disputed domain names primarily
for the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business. Such a finding warrants a conclusion of bad faith registration
and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Surface
Prot. Indus., Inc. v. Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001) (finding
that, given the competitive relationship between Complainant and Respondent,
Respondent likely registered the contested domain name with the intent to
disrupt Complainant's business and create user confusion); see also Lubbock Radio Paging
v. Venture Tele-Messaging, FA 96102 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 23, 2000)
(concluding that domain names were registered and used in bad faith where
Respondent and Complainant were in the same line of business in the same market
area); see also EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385
(Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding that the minor degree of variation from
the Complainant's marks suggests that Respondent, Complainant’s competitor, registered
the names primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant's business).
Due
to Respondent’s competitive relationship with Complainant and the fact that
Respondent manufactures and distributes BRIO compatible products, the Panel may
find that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BRIO
mark. Therefore, a determination of bad
faith registration is warranted because Respondent registered the disputed
domain names despite knowledge of Complainant’s rights. See
Vivendi Universal v. Sallen and
GO247.COM, INC., D2001-1121 (WIPO Nov. 7, 2001) (finding bad faith because
Respondents had prior knowledge of Complainant's VIVENDI UNIVERSAL mark and
deliberately chose to register a domain name that incorporated that mark in its
entirety with the word "sucks"); see
also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v.
Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding bad faith where
Respondent knowingly chose a domain name, identical to Complainant’s mark, to
voice its concerns, opinions, and criticism about the Complainant); see also 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").
Furthermore,
Respondent’s use of <brio-sucks.com>,
<briosucks.com>, and <brioexposed.com> may cause some
level of initial interest confusion among the consuming public. Therefore, the Panel may find that
Respondent’s registration and use of those domain names constitute bad faith
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Cabela’s
Inc. v. Cupcake Patrol, FA 95080 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding
that Complainant, owner of the Federally registered trademark CABELA’S and user
of the domain name <cabelas.com>, was entitled to relief under UDRP
against Respondent for the bad faith registration and use of the domain name
<cabelassucks.com> because “by using Complainant’s marks in its domain
names, Respondent makes it likely that Internet users entering CABELA’S into a
search engine will find <cabelassucks.com> in addition to the
Complainant’s site <cabelas.com>).
Respondent
claims that its conduct is sanctioned by the findings in Victoria’s Secret v. Nat’l Rag, FA 96492 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 3,
2001). “National Rag,” the Respondent
in Victoria’s Secret was a private
citizen who had registered the domain name
<victoriassecretexposed.com>.
At some point, National Rag used the domain name to host a web site with
various content described by National Rag as criticism of Victoria’s Secret, a
well-known retailer of intimate apparel, and its corporate policies. National Rag did not propose any commercial
transactions through its web site, and did not own or participate in a business
that had any connection to Victoria’s Secret.
The Panel found that Victoria’s
Secret had failed to prove bad faith in the registration and use of the domain
name. As the Complainant points out, there was no evidence that National Rag
stood to profit from the resale or commercial use of
<victoriassecretexposed.com>, no pattern of warehousing domain names
corresponding to well-known trademarks, and no indication that National Rag was
a competitor of Victoria’s Secret.
It
its Reply Brief the Complainant argues that the facts leading to the Victoria’s Secret result is
distinguishable from the current dispute.
It submits:
·
Respondent
is a direct competitor of BRIO Corporation, selling wooden trains and
accessories designed to be used with authentic BRIO wooden train sets.
·
Respondent
admits that it registered four of the five domain names at issue after being placed on notice of BRIO
Corporation’s trademark rights and after fraudulently
claiming that the <brio-train.com>
domain name was transferred to a third party.
·
Respondent
continues to use the BRIO name and mark in these domain names to promote its
own commercial enterprises through the prominent advertisement of its Spruce
Caboose business at the top of each web site
This
contention has merit and distinguishes this case from not just the Victoria’s Secret case, but certain
others, where non-commercial activities were involved.
Accordingly, this ground is made out
DECISION
Given the above findings, the Domain
Names should all be transferred to the Complainant.
Clive Elliott, Panelist
Dated: 5 August, 2002
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page