Crystalfontz America Inc. v. Tharn Lago
Claim Number: FA0207000115081
PARTIES
Complainant
is Crystalfontz America Inc.,
Valleyford, WA, USA (“Complainant”).
Respondent is Tharn Lago,
Vancouver, BC, CANADA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <crystalfonts.com>,
registered with Planet Domain.
PANEL
The
undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that
to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist
in this proceeding.
Hon.
Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on July 11, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint
on July 25, 2002.
On
July 28, 2002, Planet Domain confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <crystalfonts.com> is
registered with Planet Domain and that Respondent is the current registrant of
the name. Planet Domain has verified
that Respondent is bound by the Planet Domain 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
July 29, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of August 19,
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@crystalfonts.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
September 10, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks
Johnson 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.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant makes the following
contentions:
1. Respondent’s <crystalfonts.com> domain
name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CRYSTALFONTZ mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <crystalfonts.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <crystalfonts.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant asserts that it conducts
operations under the Crystalfontz business name, and that it has rights in the
CRYSTALFONTZ mark denoting “liquid crystal displays.”
Respondent registered the disputed domain
name on March 10, 2002. Complainant’s investigation of Respondent’s use of the
domain name indicates that Respondent is a competitor of Complainant, offering
identical goods in the same industry.
DISCUSSION
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 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 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 Respondent
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
Complainant has rights; and
(2) 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 fails in establishing rights
in the CRYSTALFONTZ mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant asserts its rights to the
CRYSTALFONTZ mark based on use of the mark as a business identity. Complainant
also allegedly has trademark rights in the CRYSTALFONTZ mark. However, a
rudimentary search on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) website
reveals that Complainant only has an application for the CRYSTALFONTZ mark,
filed for on April 19, 2002, over a month after Respondent registered the
disputed domain name. The USPTO’s record of Complainant’s mark signifies that
the first use of CRYSTALFONTZ in commerce by Complainant was May 1, 1998; thus,
predating Respondent’s use of the mark in the subject domain name. Although
this Panel is not of the opinion that trademark registration must predate
domain name registration, the circumstances are relevant when considering
Complainant’s rights in the CRYSTALFONTZ mark.
Complainant also fails to demonstrate
with sufficient evidence its rights in the CRYSTALFONTZ mark. Although an
application for trademark registration is adequate proof of rights in a mark,
Complainant fails to assert this argument. Complainant must fulfill its initial
burden to prove, by a preponderance of the credible, relevant and admissible
evidence, that the domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which it has
rights. See FRH Freies Rechenzerntrum v. Ingenieurburo FRH, FA 102945
(Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 18, 2002) (determining that Complainant has not proven by
a preponderance of the relevant, admissible and credible evidence that the
domain name in question is identical to a trademark in which Complainant has
rights despite Complainant’s mark being the dominant feature of Complainant’s
trade name).
In initiating a proceeding under the
UDRP, Complainant bears the initial burden of presenting a sufficient prima
facie case showing rights in a mark. In the present case, Complainant
asserts rights in the CRYSTALFONTZ mark, yet fails to adequately support that
assertion with any evidence, statements or proof (e.g., business letterhead,
sales figures, advertising expenditures). See Do the Hustle v. Tropic Web,
D2000-0624 (WIPO August 21, 2000) (finding that paragraph 4(a) of the Policy
sets out three elements implying that Complainant has the burden of proof as to
each of the three elements).
Furthermore, brand significance and
secondary source identity is paramount to establishing rights in a trade name.
Complainant’s Submission includes no evidence to support a finding that the
consuming public has developed a sense of brand identity with its CRYSTALFONTZ
product, brand or services. See Hbn-Teknik A/S v. Park Sung Jo, FA 110844
(Nat. Arb. Forum August 11, 2002) (stating, “[T]he general rule is that each
unregistered common law trademark and each service mark require a style of use
whereby the public develops a sense of the brand significance of the
subject term. That brand significance is. . .called a ‘secondary meaning’ of
the term which the public begins to become aware of after substantial public
use of the subject term in clear association with a given product or service”).
Simply operating under a business name does not, per se, constitute
secondary source identification. Complainant’s burden requires supporting
evidence or information indicating that consumers identify its business name as
a source identifier.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy
¶ 4(a)(i) has not been satisfied. Because satisfaction of each element listed
under paragraph 4(a) is mandatory, it is not necessary to pursue analysis of
Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(ii) or (iii).
DECISION
Having failed to establish the elements
required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be hereby DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <crystalfonts.com>
domain name REMAIN with Respondent.
Hon. Carolyn Marks
Johnson, Panelist
Dated: September 24, 2002.
Click Here to
return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page