DECISION
Davidoff &
Cie SA v Dario Muriel d/b/a Comercio Personal SL
Claim Number:
FA0211000129124
PARTIES
Complainant is Davidoff & Cie SA,
CH-1200 Geneve, Switzerland (“Complainant”) represented by Bettina Bochsler,
of Meisser & Partner.
Respondent is Dario Muriel Comercio Personal SL, Caceres, EX,
Spain (“Respondent”) represented by Stephen H. Sturgeon, of Law
Offices of Stephen H. Sturgeon & Associates.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <davidoffshop.com>,
registered with Register.com, Inc..
PANEL
The Panelists certify that they have
acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no
known conflict in serving as Panelists in this proceeding.
The Panelists are the following:
William H. Andrews, Chair
G. Gervaise Davis, III, Member
Anne M. Wallace, Member
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the
National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on November 4, 2002;
the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 7, 2002.
On November 4, 2002, Register.com, Inc.
confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <davidoffshop.com>
is registered with Register.com, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Register.com, Inc.
has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com, Inc. 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 November 13, 2002, a Notification of
Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement
Notification”), setting a deadline of December 23, 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@davidoffshop.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and
determined to be complete on December 23, 2002.
Complainant forwarded an additional
submission on January 20, 2003, which was untimely under Supplemental Rule
7. However, The Panel, in its
discretion, did consider the additional materials.
Pursuant to Complainant’s request to have
the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, the Forum appointed William H.
Andrews, G. Gervaise Davis, III and Anne M. Wallace.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name
be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that Respondent’s
registration and use of the domain name violates ICANN policy Par. 4. Complainant alleges that the registered name
is confusingly similar to the Davidoff name in which Complainant has rights;
that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the name because
Complainant, as owner of the mark, never authorized Respondent to use the mark
and because Respondent is using the mark to make a profit; and that the
registration and use of the name was done in bad faith. Specifically with respect to the bad faith
element, Complainant alleges that it notified Respondent after it discovered
Respondent’s use of the domain name, and Respondent allegedly answered that he
would like to resolve the matter amicably.
Complainant argues that such reply constitutes bad faith, in that it
demonstrates Respondent’s willingness to transfer the domain name to
Complainant for a monetary profit.
B. Respondent
Respondent argues that the domain name is
not confusingly similar to the Davidoff name, despite the incorporation of the
entire name as part of the domain, because of the addition of the word “shop”
to the domain name. Respondent contends
it has a legitimate right to use the name because it sells Davidoff products. Finally, Respondent argues that registration
and use of the name was not done in bad faith since, through the sale of
Davidoff products, Respondent had a legitimate purpose, and because its reply
to Complainant’s e-mail does not establish an attempt to transfer the domain
name to Complainant for monetary gain.
C. Additional Submissions
Complainant filed its additional
submission on January 20, 2003. In the
submission, Complainant argues that Respondent does not have a legitimate
interest in using the domain even though it sells Davidoff products. Specifically, Complainant notes that
Davidoff products are only a small portion of all products offered for sale by
Respondent. Moreover, Complainant
alleges that Respondent has not been authorized by Complainant’s distribution
network to sell Davidoff products.
FINDINGS
The Davidoff name goes back to the last
century, when Zino Davidoff’s father opened the well-known tobacconist’s
Davidoff shop in Geneva in 1911. The
shop developed into a smoker’s mecca, offering 800 types of cigarettes, 2000
types of cigars and 400 qualities of tobacco.
In addition, it also offered made-to-order cigarettes and developed its
own cigars. For many decades, Davidoff
shops have been offering a wide-range of smokers’ articles. In 1940, the Davidoff family founded
Davidoff et Cie, which was succeeded by Davidoff & Cie SA, founded in
1992. The Davidoff name is
internationally famous in relation to cigars, cigarettes and smokers’
articles. Complainant produces and sells
tobacco products internationally and its products include some of the most
famous cigars.
Respondent buys and sells tobacco and
smoke related products, which include Davidoff brands among others. On March 13, 2002, Respondent registered
<davidoffshop.com>, and thereafter used the site to attract users
to its products. This proceeding was
initiated following Complainant’s learning of Respondent’s use of the site.
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 contends that Respondent’s
registration of the domain name <davidoffshop.com> contains its
mark in its entirety and therefore is confusingly similar. Complainant has shown and Respondent does
not dispute that Complainant has been the owner of numerous Davidoff trademarks
worldwide and has had the trademark registered since 1969. Similarly, Complainant contends that
Davidoff is internationally famous and has been in the tobacco industry since
1911. Complainant clearly has rights in
the Davidoff name. Respondent argues
that the generic term “shop” makes the domain name not identical or confusing
citing Kittinger Co. v. Kittinger Collector in support of this
argument. See The Kittinger Co. Inc.
v. Kittinger Collector, AF-0107 (eResolution May 8, 2000). In Kittinger, the panel found that
the domain name “primo incense” was not confusingly similar to the trademarked
word “primo.” Unlike Kittinger,
however, Complainant has shown that the term “shop,” when used with its
Davidoff mark, is not wholly generic.
Rather, Complainant has also been known by the Davidoffshop moniker and
states that there are Davidoff shops around the world. Thus, the mere addition of a common generic
term, such as “shop”, which in fact only further describes Complainant, does
not significantly alter Complainant’s mark to overcome a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) confusingly similar
analysis. See L.L. Bean, Inc. v. ShopStarNetwork, FA 95404 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Sept. 14, 2000) (finding that combining the generic word “shop” with the
Complainant’s registered mark “llbean” does not circumvent Complainant’s rights
in the mark nor avoid the confusing similarity aspect of the ICANN Policy); see
also Space Imaging LLC v. Brownwell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000)
(finding confusing similarity where Respondent’s domain name combines
Complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to
Complainant’s business). Accordingly,
the Panel finds that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s mark.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent
contends that it has a legitimate right or interest to use the domain name
because it sells Davidoff products.
There are several factors the Panel may consider in determining whether
the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in using the domain name
despite its similarity to the Complainant’s mark. Among those factors are:
i.
Whether, before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute,
Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or
name corresponding to the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain
name is in connection with a bona-fide offering of goods or services; or
ii. Whether Respondent has been commonly
known by the domain name, even if the Respondent has not acquired trademark or
service mark rights; or
iii. Whether Respondent is making a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for
commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or
service mark at issue.
Respondent contends that it used the site
for a bona-fide offering of goods for sale pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(i) and/or
made a fair use of the site pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(iii). Respondent notes that it is a buyer and
seller of tobacco goods and has used the site to further this purpose. Complainant alleges Respondent has no rights
to the Davidoff name because no authorization was given by Complainant to
Respondent to use such name, and because Respondent is using the Davidoff name
to attract Internet users to Respondent’s site for its own commercial
gain. Complainant contends, in its
supplemental submission, that Respondent sells many other goods besides
Davidoff products. Respondent
acknowledges the same through its exhibits.
Respondent argues that it is permissible
to use the name of a manufacturer in connection with the sale of such
manufacturer’s goods, citing Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Cun
Siang Wang, D2000-1778 (WIPO Mar. 15, 2001) and The Kittinger Co. Inc.
v. Kittinger Collector, AF-0107 (eResolution May 8, 2000), among others, in
support of its position. In each of
those cases, the panel found that usage of Complainant’s name was acceptable
where Complainant’s goods were being sold.
Both Koninklijke and Kittinger, however, can be
distinguished from Respondent’s position.
There was no evidence in either of the aforementioned cases that
Respondent in those cases sold competing brands. In fact, the Koninklijke panel specifically noted that
no such evidence was present. Here, the evidence shows that Respondent
advertised and sold products other than those produced by Complainant, and it
appears that such other tobacco products are competitive brands. Moreover, as Complainant notes, the sale and
marketing of Davidoff products represents only a small portion of Respondent’s
overall business. Complainant also
submitted evidence, in its supplemental materials, that Respondent was not part
of Complainant’s official distribution network.
The present case is more akin to National
Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Halpern, D2000-0700 (WIPO Dec. 10, 2000) than
to Koninklijke or Kittinger,
In Halpern, Respondent used the mark of the NCAA to advertise and
sell not only tickets to NCAA events, but to other events, not affiliated with
the NCAA, as well. The panel found that
domain names used to sell Complainant’s goods without Complainant’s authority
as well as others’ goods is not a bona-fide use. See also Chip Merch., Inc.
v. Blue Star Elec., D2000-0474 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that the
disputed domain names were confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and that
Respondent’s use of the domain names to sell competing goods was illegitimate
and not a bona fide offering of goods).
Here, the facts lead to an inference that Respondent used Complainant’s
name to attract Internet users to Respondent’s site for commercial gain even
while the majority of Respondent’s products were not those of Complainant. Such an inference has not been rebutted by
Respondent. Moreover, a disclaimer of
interest between Complainant and Respondent is significantly absent from
Respondent’s site. The lack of any such
disclaimer, or link to an official site of Complainant itself, increases the
likelihood that Internet users will suffer confusion of identification between
Respondent and Complainant. This
increases the likelihood that Internet users will be diverted for Respondent’s
gain. Again, cases cited by Respondent
can be distinguished on this ground. Koninklijke
for example noted, in finding for Respondent, that such a disclaimer was
prominent. Therefore, for the foregoing
reasons, the Panel concludes that Respondent did not have legitimate rights to
use the Davidoff name for its site.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Panel may consider a number of
factors in reaching a determination on the question of bad faith including, but
not limited to, those factors enunciated by paragraph 4(b) of the ICANN
Policy. Such factors include:
i) Whether there are circumstances
indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name
primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the
domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark
or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable
consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out of pocket costs directly
related to the domain name; or
ii) Whether Respondent has registered the
domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from
reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent
has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
iii) Whether Respondent has registered
the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a
competitor; or
iv) Whether by using the domain name,
Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain,
Internet users to Respondent’s web site or other on line location, by creating
a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship,
affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s web site or location or of a
product or service on Respondent’s web site or location.
Complainant argues that, after it
contacted Respondent regarding what it viewed as a violation of its mark,
Respondent replied by offering to amicably resolve the matter. Complainant contends that such an action
constitutes bad faith. The Panel cannot
agree. The evidence submitted by Complainant in support of such an argument is
not persuasive and fails to carry Complainant’s burden of proof on the
issue. Complainant has submitted no
evidence suggesting that Respondent attempted to sell the domain for profit
over its out of pocket expenses. The
evidence indicates that the purpose of registering the domain name was to sell
cigars.
Although bad faith is not established
under section (i), the evidence does support a finding of bad faith pursuant to
section (iv). It is indisputable that
Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its site for
commercial gain. By using the Davidoff
name as part of the domain name, and by the way in which the site was set up,
Respondent did create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as
to the source and sponsorship and endorsement of the site. Moreover, because Respondent sold products
that were not produced by Complainant, and because Respondent has never been
known or recognized by the Davidoff name, the inescapable conclusion is that
Respondent attempted to trade on Davidoff’s internationally famous name and
goodwill to sell other products even while Davidoff products constituted a
fraction of Respondent’s overall business.
Such actions amount to bad faith on the part of Respondent. See Fossil Inc. v. NAS, FA 92525
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 23, 2000) (finding that Respondent acted in bad faith by
registering the domain name <fossilwatch.com> and using it to sell
various watch brands); see also Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet, Inc.,
D2000-0127 WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent attempted to
attract customers to its website, <efitnesswholesale.com>, and created
confusion by offering similar products for sale as Complainant).
DECISION
For the foregoing reasons, The Panel
hereby finds that the domain name used by the Respondent is confusingly similar
to the mark in which the Complainant has rights; that Respondent has no rights
or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name; and that the domain name
was registered and used in bad faith.
Accordingly, the relief sought by Complainant shall be GRANTED
and the domain name <davidoffshop.com> shall be TRANSFERRED to Complainant.
William H. Andrews, Presiding Panelist
Dated: January 28, 2003
Anne M. Wallace, Member Panelist
Dated: January 28, 2003
DISSENT OF G.
Gervaise Davis III, Esq.:
I respectfully
dissent from the thoughtful decision of the majority. I do so primarily because I am concerned that once again an ICANN
Panel is unintentionally permitting a Complainant to use the UDRP to resolve a factual
dispute that belongs in a trial court, not merely to stop an abusive domain
name use. I also believe that the
precedents cited by Complainant, and accepted by the majority, do not support
the decision and conclusions reached by the majority.
In my judgment,
this is not really a trademark-domain name dispute, but a barely disguised
effort to stop a discount seller, by Complainant’s own indirect admission. Complainant says of Respondent’s website
“the Respondent offered DAVIDOFF tobacco products for “super low prices, sharing
the low taxes in Spain with the consumers.”
Even Complainant admits that Respondent was in fact selling Davidoff
tobacco products from the website through the use of the domain name, which
belies any argument that the domain was being used to mislead or misdirect
consumers. The exhibits from Respondent’s website, attached to the Complaint,
clearly identify which products were Davidoff items, and which came from other
tobacco producers. No one could be
confused if they spent under two minutes looking at the content of the web
site. Furthermore, there is no argument presented by Complainant of what has
come to be known as “Initial Interest Confusion.”
In my judgment,
there is nothing misleading about the website.
However, if one were to feel that this was an issue, the extent to which
the use of the domain name might have been confusing consumers is a factual
issue which cannot be determined from the sparse evidence presented by
Complainant. Complainant also admits
that there are numerous other websites using the Davidoff name and mark for the
sale of tobacco products, which it has apparently not made any effort to
stop. If assumptions were to made about
the facts, as the majority and Complainant have done here, one might also
assume the reason no objections were made to the other sites is because they
were not discounters. We, of course, do
not know for sure since we have no evidence on many of the relevant
issues. That is why it is inappropriate
for us to rule on this dispute as an “abusive registration.”
UDRP arbitration
panels handling domain name disputes have no procedures for taking evidence on
conflicting issues or for ascertaining the relative truth or falsity of the
evidence before them, unlike a trial court.
They also have no way of evaluating the true purposes for the
litigation, but must rely on ten short pages of facts and law cited, with some
exhibits that are often incomplete or potentially misleading without
accompanying testimony to explain them.
Often, as in this case, there is an unanswered Supplemental filing by
the Complainant, which the Respondent could have responded to, by request to
the Panel, but did not. This case is a
perfect illustration of why an intentionally created, simplified summary
arbitration proceeding is a poor forum for a case involving disputed factual
and legal issues that go far beyond an alleged “abusive domain name
registration.”
As I understand
the UDRP and its documented history, the UDRP proceedings are intended only
for clear cases of abusive registration and misuse of a domain name that was
adopted to take improper advantage of the trademark owner’s rights. See, the discussion of the WIPO Staff Report
on the UDRP in my dissent in J. Crew v.
Crew.com, D2000-0054 (WIPO Apr. 20, 2000) which dissent has received
considerable favorable comment in legal journals, and subsequently been used by
many WIPO and Forum decisions as the basis for refusing to transfer a domain
name where there were disputed factual issues.
Most of the true abusive registration cases involve someone who
registers a name in the hopes of extorting money from the trademark owner, or
to harass them, or to injure their business.
There is admittedly no such evidence here of such activities – only the
sale of tobacco products from the website, acquired from various producers
including those of Davidoff.
The whole idea
of a summary proceeding under UDRP was to provide a simple and quick proceeding
for cases that were clear on their face, designed to avoid the cost of court
litigation. For this reason, the Rules
provide that the entire burden of proof is on the Complainant. Most of the cases under the UDRP correctly
reflect this, and properly deny relief where there is any question of the
facts. The majority, here, I believe,
has permitted the Complainant to prevail based on questionable factual and
legal assumptions and mere inferences.
I believe this is improper, and demonstrates, once again, why factual
and legal disputes should not be resolved by UDRP proceedings. To do so, improperly denies the Respondent
rights to defend genuinely contested facts and interpretations of facts, and
does not permit a full examination of the true purposes of the litigation,
regardless of the merits either way.
It should be
clear that I do not disagree with the usual application of the general concepts
of the UDRP, and I agree that there are some elements of a trademark dispute
here. The Complainant has demonstrated
at least a minimal case of potentially confusing similarity between its
“Davidoff” family of marks for tobacco products and the disputed domain name
<davidoffshop.com> registered by Respondent. While I think the Respondent raised some
genuine issues of fact about the generic nature of the domain name, I assume
for purposes of this Dissent that the first leg of the three requirements of a
UDRP case has been met by Complainant.
Where I first
differ with the majority is in their finding that the Respondent had no
legitimate right or interest in the use of the domain name that incorporates and
uses the Davidoff surname/mark. The
majority concludes this, based on the premise that Respondent “was not part of
Complainant’s official distribution network,” and that Respondent also sold
tobacco products of other companies to the extent that “Davidoff products
represent only a small portion of Respondent’s overall business.” Whether these facts are true is an
evidentiary question that is not answered in the pleadings submitted, but is
merely a surmise by the Complainant accepted by the majority. In fact, even Complainant admits in its
pleadings that under Spanish law, because Respondent has a tobacco sales
license, it has the legal right to sell tobacco products of Complainant and
those of any other producer. This
admission directly conflicts with Complainant’s argument that Respondent was
not authorized to sell Davidoff tobacco products.
By accepting
these questionable assumptions and assertions, the majority seems to be
accepting the unique legal premise argued by Complainant (who presented virtually
no authority for the proposition) that the principle of “fair use” does not
permit a reseller to use a product trademark for reselling and advertising
unless at least a majority of the sales made under the mark are those of the
trademark owner. This introduces a
quantitative test for fair use that would make it impossible for a reseller to
determine if its use of a trademark was legal, until the sales results for each
business period were known. Such a test
is, to me, unworkable and unreasonable commercially. Moreover, it is simply not the law of fair use.
It is also
belied by the fact that in the automobile industry, for example, businesses
routinely advertise that they are “Jones Pontiac-Acura Automobiles of Seaside,”
when they sell both Pontiac cars from General Motors and Acura cars from a
Japanese competitor. To create the
quantitative rule espoused by Complainant would require that the Jones car
dealership count up the cars sold each year in order to determine which
trademark it could use, and even then one might question whether it was the
number of cars of each brand sold, or the dollar value sold that determined
whether the test was met. I could
provide other examples, but think the point is made that this proposed and
unsupported test that the majority and the Complainant have used is
unworkable. The question should be “are
the consumers confused by the use of the mark?” and “does the reseller actually
sell the products sourced from the trademark owner?” On that basis, the Respondent would clearly prevail here.
Finally, on the
third required leg of proof, of bad faith registration, I am also concerned
that the majority has again accepted the very same false suppositions and
assertions of the Complainant, discussed above, as to the law and the facts,
neither of which have been proven conclusively by the Complainant. The bad faith finding is, therefore, based
on a false and incorrect proposition of law, and neither of the cases used to
support this view support the proposition for which it is cited.
The majority
decision concludes that Respondent both registered and used the domain name in
bad faith since Respondent sold products of Davidoff and other producers from
the website and that therefore it was an “inescapable conclusion … that Respondent
attempted to trade on Davidoff’s internationally famous name and
goodwill.” If Complainant’s
quantitative “fair use” test is not the law, then the majority decision is also
wrong on this aspect as well. I feel
that to simply accept Complainant’s assertion that it “must be bad faith” if
you do not limit your sales entirely to items from the trademark owner is to
shift the burden of proof from the Complainant to the Respondent, and then to
deny him an opportunity to explain why selling other items does not harm the
trademark owner. It would be an
entirely different thing if Respondent only sold competitive goods, but that is
not the case here.
Finally, the Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet, Inc.,
case cited by Complainant and used by the majority to support the third leg of
necessary law does not find bad faith because the domain name owner sold other
goods in addition to those of the trademark owner. In fact, it merely found, in a default
case where the Respondent did not even present evidence nor appear,
that
the domain name “efitnesswarehouse.com” is confusingly similar to the service
mark “FITNESS WAREHOUSE”. The Panel notes that Respondent has registered and
attempted to use the disputed domain name in the same line of services as that
which Complainant provides, and that this makes it likely that consumers would
be confused as between these two sources.
This is a far
cry from holding that selling more than one producer’s goods is an improper use
of a trademark. I think no one would
disagree with this conclusion by the Busy
Body panel, since it is totally consistent with the existing law of
trademark confusion and has absolutely nothing to do with any “fair use” test.
Furthermore, the
principal case relied on by Complainant, Fossil,
Inc. v. NAS, FA 92525 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 23, 2000), is similarly NOT
supportive of its proposition, even though there are many ICANN decisions that
cite it for this proposition. The
authors of such decisions have perhaps not read the actual decision they rely upon. That decision, almost in its entirety,
states as follows:
On
September 13, 1999, Respondent NAS registered with Network Solutions for the
domain name www.fossilwatch.com, which is the subject of the instant
Complaint. The site represented by this
domain name engages in the sale of various brands of watches. Fossil watches are not authorized to be
sold through this site. [Emphasis
added by Dissenter.]
The
undersigned concludes that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to
the Fossil Marks to which Complainant has rights. It would appear that the domain name is merely a combination of
Complainant’s mark, “Fossil,” and the principal or primary goods represented by
that mark, the word “watch” and .com.
The record before the undersigned does not reflect any rights or
legitimate interest in the domain name by Respondent. The combination as registered by Respondent herein reflects a
wrongful attempt by the Respondent to attract, for commercial gain, internet
users to its web site suggesting affiliation specifically with Fossil
watches. Respondent is deemed to have
exercised bad faith in registering and using the domain name.
There is nothing
in this decision to suggest that “Fossil Watches” were in fact sold from the
site in question, and there is virtually no discussion of the concept urged by
Complainant to the effect that selling other producers products, as well as
those of the trademark owner, makes it an “unfair use” to use the
trademark. To the contrary, the
decision merely states that the domain name owner used the exact trademark of
the Complainant to sell “various brands of watches.” Whether the site even sold any watches from the Fossil Watch
producer cannot be determined from the decision, and a fair reading would
suggest that it did not sell them at all.
Therefore, the conclusion reached by the panel there is certainly not
surprising, nor would this dissenter disagree with the result of that case.
For the
foregoing reasons, I believe that this Panel should not engage in the suppositions
or assumptions urged by the Complainant, and I would deny the requested
transfer of the domain name. It could
well be that in the case of a formal trial, Complainant could establish that
there was sufficient confusion to justify a claim of infringement, but on the
slim and inconclusive evidence here, I believe we should exercise our right to
deny the relief and ask that it be determined by a court of law. I see no evidence of the type of abusive
conduct contemplated by the framers of the UDRP rules. I therefore respectfully dissent from the
decision as filed.
G. Gervaise Davis III, Esq.
Dissenting Panelist
January 30, 2003
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page