national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Traditional Medicinals, Inc. v. Cimino Brothers Produce

Claim Number: FA0905001261774

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Traditional Medicinals, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jay H. Geller of Jay H. Geller, California, USA.  Respondent is Cimino Brothers Produce (“Respondent”), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <mothersmilk.com>, registered with Network Solutions, Inc.

 

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 electronically May 7, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint May 11, 2009.

 

On May 11, 2009, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <mothersmilk.com> domain name is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Network Solutions, Inc. verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. registration agreement and thereby has agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On May 14, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 3, 2009, 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@mothersmilk.com by e-mail.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On June 8, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson to sit as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum 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 National Arbitration 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 assertions:

 

1.      The domain name that Respondent registered, <mothersmilk.com>, is identical to Complainant’s MOTHER’S MILK mark.

 

2.      Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <mothersmilk.com> domain name.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <mothersmilk.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Traditional Medicinals, Inc., offers a wide range of health food items and uses the MOTHER’S MILK mark in association with its widely popular tea.  Complainant owns a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the MOTHER’S MILK mark (Reg. No. 1,265,889 issued January 31, 1984).

 

Respondent registered the <mothersmilk.com> domain name August 12, 2004, some 20 years after Complainant established rights in the mark.  Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a blank webpage.

 

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."

 

Given 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 will draw such inferences as the Panel considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory.  See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also 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.”).

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires Complainant to 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.

 

Identical to and/or Confusingly Similar

 

The Panel finds that Complainant established rights in the MOTHER’S MILK mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registration with the USPTO.  See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent’s <mothersmilk.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s MOTHER’S MILK mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  Respondent’s disputed domain name contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety, omits spacing, omits an apostrophe, and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”  The Panel finds that omission of spacing, omission of an apostrophe, and addition of a gTLD are irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from an established mark because spacing and apostrophes are impermissable in a domain name and a gTLD is a required element of every domain name.  See Microsoft Corp. v. Mehrotra, D2000-0053 (WIPO Apr. 10, 2000) (finding that the domain name <microsoft.org> is identical to the complainant’s mark); see also Hannover Ruckversicherungs-AG v. Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2001) (finding <hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as spaces are impermissible in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as ‘.com’ or ‘.net’ is required in domain names”); see also Chi-Chi’s, Inc. v. Rest. Commentary, D2000-0321 (WIPO June 29, 2000) (finding the domain name <chichis.com> to be identical to the complainant’s CHI-CHI’S mark, despite the omission of the apostrophe and hyphen from the mark).  Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s MOTHER’S MILK mark.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights to or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the <mothersmilk.com> domain name.  When Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  The Panel finds that in this case, Complainant made a prima facie case.  See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent.  In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent is neither commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor licensed to register a domain name using the MOTHER’S MILK mark.  Respondent’s WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Cimino Brothers Produce” and therefore lacks any defining characteristics relating it to the disputed domain name.  The Panel finds that without affirmative evidence to show that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record).

 

Respondent failed to make active use of the <mothersmilk.com> domain name.  No evidence on record suggests that Respondent has used or intends to use the disputed domain name in any manner.  As a result, the Panel finds that Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of good or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), and has not shown a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent failed to submit a response to the complaint and had made no use of the domain name in question); see also Melbourne IT Ltd. v. Stafford, D2000-1167 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name where there is no proof that the respondent made preparations to use the domain name or one like it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services before notice of the domain name dispute, the domain name did not resolve to a website, and the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Complainant urges that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith. Here, Respondent registered and passively held the domain name. The Panel finds that it may consider the totality of the circumstances when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) analysis, and that is not limited to the enumerated factors in Policy ¶ 4(b).  See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“[T]he examples [of bad faith] in Paragraph 4(b) are intended to be illustrative, rather than exclusive.”); see also Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (“The requirement in the ICANN Policy that a complainant prove that domain names are being used in bad faith does not require that it prove in every instance that a respondent is taking positive action. Use in bad faith can be inferred from the totality of the circumstances even when the registrant has done nothing more than register the names.”).

 

Respondent has registered the <mothersmilk.com> domain name but has not made an active use of it.  The Panel finds that passive non-use also supports findings of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that failure to make an active use of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <mothersmilk.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist

Dated: June 22, 2009.

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum