EducationDynamics, LLC v.
Global Access c/o domain admin
Claim Number: FA0905001265489
PARTIES
Complainant is EducationDynamics, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Catherine
E. Maxson, of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <elearner.com>, registered with Fabulous.com
Pty Ltd.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and
impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in
serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., G. Gervaise Davis III,,
and Beatrice Onica Jarka as Panelists.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on
On
On
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on
An additional Submission was received from the Complainant on July 6,
2009 and from the Respondent
on July 10, 2009.
The Panel has considered these additional filings and determined that
they are to be considered as they comply with Supplemental Rules 7.
On July 8, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., G. Gervaise Davis
III, and Dr. Beatrice Onica Jarka as Panelists.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that:
·
It holds
· In addition, its ELEARNERS and ELEARNERS.COM marks have acquired and enjoy substantial goodwill and a valuable reputation through their long-standing use.
· The <elearners.com> website averages more than 900,000 unique monthly visitors. In 2008, the site connected approximately 7 million prospective students to more than 175 higher education and continuing education providers.
· The disputed domain name <elearner.com> is confusingly similar to EducationDynamics’s marks ELEARNERS and ELEARNERS.COM, and also to EducationDynamics’s domain name <elearners.com>, as it differs only by one letter “s” from the Complainant’s trademarks and domain name,
·
Respondent’s registration of the <elearner.com> domain name
reflects a common mistyping of EducationDynamics’s marks, and constitutes the
deliberate practice known as “typosquatting,”
· The association between Respondent and EducationDynamics is exacerbated by the way in which Respondent uses the <elearner.com> domain name, specifically, the similarities between the website associated with Respondent’s domain name and EducationDynamics’s <elearners.com> website.
·
Respondent’s <elearner.com> domain name and contents of the website
associated therewith falsely suggest that <elearner.com>
is a legitimate website owned or sponsored by EducationDynamics.
·
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed
domain name.
· Respondent did not register the domain name until after May 28, 2009, long after EducationDynamics started using its trademarks and registered its trademarks.
· Respondent is not known by the name “elearner”;
· The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, as it was registered well after EducationDynamics had started using its marks (ten years) and after it had obtained U.S. trademark registrations (approximately seven years). Respondent’s domain name utilizes EducationDynamics’s marks, and Respondent uses that domain name in connection with a commercial website that provides links to EducationDynamics’s competitors and to schools that are EducationDynamics’s customers for its advertising services.
B. Respondent
Respondent answers that:
·
Complainant
has no exclusive rights to use the term “elearners” or “elearner”in connection
with information and advertising relative to elearning, as it is a descriptive and
generic term
·
Respondent’s
use of the disputed domain name is bona fide and legitimate,
·
Respondent
registered the disputed domain name because of its generic/descriptive
application and there is no evidence of the actual knowledge of the Respondent
in registering and using the disputed domain name.
C. Additional Submissions
By the additional submissions, Complainant rejects the reasoning of
Respondent by affirming strong trademark rights in ELEARNERS and ELEARNERS.COM,
and the proof of all three elements of the Policy. In this sense Complainant
invokes the precedent of the decision No. FA0801001139891 (Nat. Arb. Forum
By the additional submissions, Respondent invokes the improperness of
the additional submissions of Complainant, as they were unsolicited by the
Panel, according to UDRP Rule 12. On the merits, in addition to the already
invoked reasoning by Response, Respondent invokes NAF decisions recently decided
against the complainant in connection with generic/descriptive terms referring
to gradschools.com and graduateschools.com (FA0903001250509, Nat.
Arb. Forum,
FINDINGS
Complainant holds United
States trademark registrations for Elearners
(Reg.No. 2,470,525, registered on
Respondent has been using the
disputed domain name since
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 contends, and the Panel
finds, that it has established rights in the ELEARNERS.COM mark under Policy ¶
4(a)(i) via its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,537,155 issued
Respondent’s <elearner.com> domain name differs from
Complainant’s ELEARNERS.COM mark by omitting the letter “s.” The Panel finds that the <elearner.com>
domain name
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ELEARNERS.COM mark under Policy
¶ 4(a)(i). See
While
Respondent contends that the <elearner.com> domain name
is comprised of common, descriptive terms and as such cannot be found to be
identical to Complainant’s mark, the Panel finds that such a determination is
not necessary under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as this portion of the Policy considers
only whether Complainant has rights in the mark and whether the disputed domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend,
FA 970871 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Complainant must first make a prima
facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then
the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum
In this sense, Complainant asserts it has not granted Respondent any license to use its ELEARNERS.COM
mark. The WHOIS information associated
with the disputed domain name lists Respondent as “Global Access c/o domain admin.” Respondent has not submitted any evidence
that it is commonly known by the <elearner.com> domain name.
Complainant asserts that Respondent is using the <elearner.com> domain name to resolve to a parking website that display links to third-party
websites which are in direct competition to the advertisements and links posted
by Complainant. These allegations are not contested by Respondent. Complainant
further asserts that Respondent receives click-through fees for the
advertisements listed on the resolving websites. The
Panel finds this use is neither a bona
fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)
nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Fox
News Network, LLC v. Reid, D2002-1085 (WIPO
Respondent argues that
Complainant does not have an “exclusive right to provide advertising for online
courses” as the disputed domain name is comprised of generic
terms and of common use and
therefore, Complainant does not have an exclusive monopoly on these terms on
the Internet. Complainant holds trademarks for “dissemination of advertising for others via an on-line electronic
communications network”, trademarks which have acquired and enjoy
substantial goodwill and a valuable reputation through their long-standing
use. Complainant is using these
trademarks in order to advertise on line education provided by others.
Complainant is not itself a provider of these on-line education services. As
found by other Panels, Complainant is
well-known within this field of on-line educational services, with
incontestable trademark registrations for the ELEARNERS and ELEARNERS.COM
marks. Complainant’s website receives
approximately 900,000 visitors per month and allows users to access information
and services about on-line education and academic programs. See also EducationDynamics,
LLC v.
The Panel takes into consideration the request of Respondent to decide
this case on its own merits, but it cannot ignore the findings of other Panels
in connection with the strong rights of Complainant in the trademarks ELEARNERS
and ELEARNERS.COM, especially when Respondent is providing exactly the same
kind of services as Complainant – advertising on-line education for others,
using Complainant’s trademarks.
Therefore the Panel considers that
Respondent has failed
to present arguments and evidence to show its rights or legitimate interests in
the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant asserts that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that directly competes with Complainant’s website by advertising third-party eLearning opportunities. As said before these assertions are not contradicted by Respondent.
According to Complainant, the website that resolves from the <elearner.com> domain name displays advertisements and links to websites in direct competition with Complainant. Complainant contends that Respondent receives pay-per-click fees for these links and advertisements. Also these assertions are not contradicted by Respondent.
Moreover, the association between Respondent and Complainant is exacerbated, according to Complainant, by the way in which Respondent uses the <elearner.com> domain name, specifically, the similarities between the website associated with Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s <elearners.com> website. None of these assertions were denied by Respondent, which concentrated its reasoning on the descriptive character of the Complainant’s trademarks.These circumstances require the Panel to find that Respondent has registered and has been using the disputed domain name in order to take advantage of the inherent confusion between the <elearner.com> domain name and Complainant’s ELEARNERS.COM mark for Respondent’s own financial gain.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
See Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum
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 <elearner.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Dr. Beatrice Onica
Jarka, Chair
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated:
DISSENT OF MINORITY PANELIST
I respectfully
disagree with the result of the
Majority in this case, while I do not
disagree with their finding that Complainant owns several registered trademarks
substantially identical to the domain name at issue. However, I find no evidence whatsoever that
the domain was registered in bad
faith, since Complainant provided not even a scintilla of evidence to that
effect other than that “Respondent must have known of Complainant’s rights”
when it acquired the domain in May 2009.
That is not evidence but speculation.
The subject domain has apparently existed for many years in the hands of
other owners prior to Respondent acquiring it.
I am not aware of any legal principle under the UDRP which makes it bad
faith to register an existing domain name in order to use it, nor did
Complainant cite such law.
Similarly,
Complainant complains that Respondent’s use
of the domain is to attract viewers to a website that directs them to
educational institutions, for which it earns a fee. Contrary to the stated conclusion of the
Majority which finds this use improper, this is exactly what Complainant uses
its own website and domain for, by its own admission on its web page under its
Legal Notices section, http://www.elearners.com/help/legal.asp, where it describes
itself as “eLearners.com, a part of the Student Prospecting Division of
EducationDynamics, LLC.” In other
words, Complainant uses its domain <elearners.com> to help its
institutional advertisers find students who come to the site looking for information. How this differs legally from what Respondent
uses its domain name for is beyond me.
Neither use is contrary to the UDRP and the many, many cases under it,
nor does it form a legal basis for ruling here against Respondent.
In the final
analysis, however, the domain should not
be transferred to Complainant, simply because Complainant’s registered
trademarks have become so hopelessly generic and descriptive that they no
longer serve to uniquely distinguish the services of Complainant. In fact, it would seem almost incredible that
that USPTO ever issued the registrations on these marks which were already
generic and descriptive at the time they were issued. As another Forum panel recently held, in a case involving this same Complainant,
“When a trademark is composed of generic terms, or common words phrases,
and the disputed domain is being used “because of its attraction as [a]
dictionary word[], and not because of [its] value as [a] trade mark[],” the
Respondent has legitimate rights in the domain. . . . The use of a common word
domain name related to the descriptive meaning of the domain name and its
services constitutes use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or
services, pursuant to ¶ 4(c)(i) of the UDRP.” Nat.
Arb. Forum, decision FA0903001250509,
The U.S. Courts of
Appeal have ruled similarly in numerous cases, such as a well known decision
where the Ninth Circuit held
“. . . a holder of a trademark must be denied protection if
the mark becomes generic and is an expression
that does not relate exclusively to a trademark owner's property. New Kids on the Block v. News
Am. Pub., Inc., 971 F.2d 302, 306 (9th Cir. 1992). This case has been cited and followed dozens
of times since it came down.
This principle is so
strong that there are legions of U.S. cases of otherwise well established
trademarks becoming so descriptive and generic as to result in the
unenforceability of the mark, since it no longer, if it ever did, exclusively
describes the services or goods of the owner of the mark. The examples of the terms “cellophane,”
“elevator,” “aspirin,” and many other marks illustrate this rule of law which
the Majority of this Panel is ignoring by its decision. See, “An Overview of Trademark Law,” http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm#6 where the author
explains:
“Trademark rights
can also be lost through genericity. Sometimes, trademarks that are originally
distinctive can become generic over time, thereby losing its trademark
protection. Kellogg Co.
v. National Biscuit Co., 305
One may also read of
numerous other examples in the entry on “Genericized Trademarks” in the well
known Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark, which
cites many other examples and cases.
Suffice it to say,
this Dissenting Panelist feels it is poor public policy as well as contrary to
the fundamental purpose of the UDRP to protect generic or descriptive
trademarks, which has the effect of taking such terms out of the public use, or
at least making it difficult for the public to use the English language from
which these words are taken.
An example of the absurdity
of this practice, here, is found when one uses the Google® search engine to
search for the term “elearner.” This
results in 76,100 hits, only a few of which have anything to do with
Complainant or its website, while the tens of thousands of other hits refer to
and use the common and generic terms “elearner,” “elearning,” or terms like “elearning methodology,” which
illustrates far more effectively than this Panelist can, that the whole concept
of “elearning” is a technical English term and description of a new method of
learning that belongs to the public at large and not to some domain name owner
who seeks to arrogate ownership of a descriptive or generic English word to
itself.
EducationDynamics
LLC (Complainant here) does not own the word “elearner”or “elearners,” the
public does and any decision like that of the Majority
here, which so finds, is simply and regrettably wrong. I have, therefore, respectfully dissented here in some detail so
that other Panels in the future do not make what this Panelist sincerely believes
is an error of law.
G. Gervaise Davis III, Panelist
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum