DECISION

 

Foot Locker Retail, Inc. v. Bruce Gibson

Claim Number:  FA0212000139693

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Foot Locker Retail, Inc., New York, NY (“Complainant”) represented by Melissa L. Klipp, of Drinker Biddle & Shanley LLP. Respondent is Bruce Gibson, Corona, NY (“Respondent”).

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <footlockersportinggoodsinternational.com>, <babyfootlocker-clothing-shoes-supplies.com>, <footlockersportinggoodstechnical-shoes-apparel-equipment.com>, <footlockersportingtechnicalinformation-marathontrainingtips.com> and <ladyfootlockersportinggoodsshoes-apparel.com>, registered with NameSecure.com.

 

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.

 

Sandra Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on December 31, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 31, 2002.

 

On January 7, 2003, NameSecure.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <footlockersportinggoodsinternational.com>, <babyfootlocker-clothing-shoes-supplies.com>, <footlockersportinggoodstechnical-shoes-apparel-equipment.com>, <footlockersportingtechnicalinformation-marathontrainingtips.com> and <ladyfootlockersportinggoodsshoes-apparel.com> are registered with NameSecure.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameSecure.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSecure.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 January 7, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 27, 2003 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@footlockersportinggoodsinternational.com, postmaster@babyfootlocker-clothing-shoes-supplies.com, postmaster@footlockersportinggoodstechnical-shoes-apparel-equipment.com, postmaster@footlockersportingtechnicalinformation-marathontrainingtips.com and postmaster@ladyfootlockersportinggoodsshoes-apparel.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 January 30, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra Franklin 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <footlockersportinggoodsinternational.com>, <babyfootlocker-clothing-shoes-supplies.com>, <footlockersportinggoodstechnical-shoes-apparel-equipment.com>, <footlockersportingtechnicalinformation-marathontrainingtips.com> and <ladyfootlockersportinggoodsshoes-apparel.com> domain names are all confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered FOOT LOCKER and LADY FOOT LOCKER marks.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <footlockersportinggoodsinternational.com>, <babyfootlocker-clothing-shoes-supplies.com>, <footlockersportinggoodstechnical-shoes-apparel-equipment.com>, <footlockersportingtechnicalinformation-marathontrainingtips.com> and <ladyfootlockersportinggoodsshoes-apparel.com> domain names.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <footlockersportinggoodsinternational.com>, <babyfootlocker-clothing-shoes-supplies.com>, <footlockersportinggoodstechnical-shoes-apparel-equipment.com>, <footlockersportingtechnicalinformation-marathontrainingtips.com> and <ladyfootlockersportinggoodsshoes-apparel.com> domain names in bad faith.

 

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

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Foot Locker Retail, Inc., holds rights in the registered and incontestable FOOT LOCKER mark (e.g. U.S. Reg. No. 1,061,754, registered on March 22, 1977 with the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office). Complainant has registered several variations of its FOOT LOCKER mark, including LADY FOOT LOCKER (e.g. U.S. Reg. No. 1,376,373), LADY FOOT LOCKER SPORT (U.S. Reg. No. 2,257,615) and KIDS FOOT LOCKER (e.g. U.S. Reg. Nos. 1,562,804), each of which predate Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names. In addition, Complainant has registered each of the above marks in a format resembling a domain name, such as it’s registered FOOTLOCKER.COM mark. (U.S. Reg. No. 2,554,892). Each of Complainant’s registered “.COM” variations on its FOOT LOCKER mark also predate Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names.

 

For over two decades, Complainant has used its FOOT LOCKER family of marks in connetion with the sale and advertisement of athletic footwear, equipment, and apparel. Pursuant to its business, Complainant operates over 2,000 retail stores worldwide. Since its first use of the marks, Complainant has invested billions of dollars into promoting its FOOT LOCKER family of marks.

 

Complainant maintains an online retail presence at websites such as <footlocker.com>, <ladyfootlocker.com>, and <kidsfootlocker.com>. In 2001, Complainant generated over $100 million dollars in Internet sales from its domain names. As noted, supra, Complainant was able to register several trademarks reflecting its reputable domain names with the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

 

Prior to this dispute, Complainant had previous dealings with Respondent Bruce Gibson. On May 23, 2000, Complainant sent Respondent a cease-and-desist letter regarding the <footlockersportinggoods.com> and <footlockerathletics.com> domain names, both registered by Respondent. The cease-and-desist letter went unanswered by Respondent, but Respondent permitted the domain name registrations to lapse, allowing Complainant’s attorney to register them on behalf of Complainant.

 

A supplemental cease-and-desist letter was sent on April 23, 2002, regarding the <footlockerinternational.com>, <footlockervendors.com>, <kidsfootlockervendors.com>, ladyfootlockervendors.com>, and <mensfootlocker.com> domain names. Again, Complainant received no response, and again, the domain name registrations were allowed to expire, on or about July of 2002.

 

On July 19, 2002, on or about the time that the above-mentioned domain name registrations expired, Respondent registered the <footlockersportinggoodsinternational.com>, <babyfootlocker-clothing-shoes-supplies.com>, <footlockersportinggoodstechnical-shoes-apparel-equipment.com>, <footlockersportingtechnicalinformation-marathontrainingtips.com> and <ladyfootlockersportinggoodsshoes-apparel.com> domain names. Respondent is not and has never been licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s FOOT LOCKER family of marks for any purpose. Respondent has not posted any original content at the disputed domain names since their registration.

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant has established rights in its FOOT LOCKER family of marks through registration with the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, as well as through widespread use and promotion of the marks worldwide.

 

Respondent’s <footlockersportinggoodsinternational.com>, <babyfootlocker-clothing-shoes-supplies.com>, <footlockersportinggoodstechnical-shoes-apparel-equipment.com>, <footlockersportingtechnicalinformation-marathontrainingtips.com> and <ladyfootlockersportinggoodsshoes-apparel.com> domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered FOOT LOCKER family of marks. The dominant feature of each of the domain names is some variation of Complainant’s distinctive FOOT LOCKER mark, an important consideration when analyzing confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001) (“the fact that a domain name incorporates a Complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish identical or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks”); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that “[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word…nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark SONY” and thus Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied).

 

Respondent’s addition of descriptive words and phrases to Complainant’s marks in the disputed domain names (such as “sporting goods,” “shoes,” “apparel,” or “marathon training tips”) do nothing to dispel the confusing similarity surrounding its use of Complainant’s FOOT LOCKER family of marks. As these words and phrases are all descriptive of Complainant’s business, they actually increase the likelihood of confusion in the minds of Internet users who also recognize Complainant’s FOOT LOCKER family of marks in the domain names. Respondent’s use of generic words such as “technical” or “international” in the disputed domain names also fails to create a meaningful distinction, for similar reasons. See 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); 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).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the <footlockersportinggoodsinternational.com>, <babyfootlocker-clothing-shoes-supplies.com>, <footlockersportinggoodstechnical-shoes-apparel-equipment.com>, <footlockersportingtechnicalinformation-marathontrainingtips.com> and <ladyfootlockersportinggoodsshoes-apparel.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered FOOT LOCKER family of marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Under the Policy, the burden lies upon the Complainant to show that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant can meet this burden with a showing that the safe harbors illustrated in Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i)-(iii) do not apply to Respondent. Once Complainant has made this showing, Complainant’s burden shifts to Respondent, and Respondent’s lack of a response results in its inability to meet its burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding where a Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name it is incumbent on Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that once Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain, the burden shifts to Respondent to provide credible evidence that substantiates its claim of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name).

 

Respondent makes no use of the infringing <footlockersportinggoodsinternational.com>, <babyfootlocker-clothing-shoes-supplies.com>, <footlockersportinggoodstechnical-shoes-apparel-equipment.com>, <footlockersportingtechnicalinformation-marathontrainingtips.com> and <ladyfootlockersportinggoodsshoes-apparel.com> domain names. Considering that all of the disputed domain names infringe on Complainant’s registered marks, are not being utilized for any purpose, and that Respondent has not come forward reason to hold otherwise, the Panel concludes that neither Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) apply to Respondent. See Vestel Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret AS v. Kahveci, D2000-1244 (WIPO Nov. 11, 2000) (finding that “merely registering the domain name is not sufficient to establish rights or legitimate interests for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy”); see also Woolworths plc. v. Anderson, D2000-1113 (WIPO Oct. 10, 2000) (finding that absent evidence of preparation to use the domain name for a legitimate purpose, the burden of proof lies with the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests).

 

Due to the fame of Complainant’s FOOT LOCKER family of marks, the fact that Complainant has not licensed Respondent to use its marks and the fact that Respondent’s WHOIS information reveals its name to be “Bruce Gibson,” the Panel infers that Respondent was not “commonly known by” any of the disputed domain names prior to their registration, and concludes that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply to Respondent. See RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (Interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail"); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name).

 

Complainant has successfully shown that Respondent’s behavior does not fall under the ambit of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i)-(iii). The Panel also views Respondent’s lack of a response as evidence that it has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names in finding that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) is satisfied. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the Panel to draw adverse inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply to the Complaint).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <footlockersportinggoodsinternational.com>, <babyfootlocker-clothing-shoes-supplies.com>, <footlockersportinggoodstechnical-shoes-apparel-equipment.com>, <footlockersportingtechnicalinformation-marathontrainingtips.com> and <ladyfootlockersportinggoodsshoes-apparel.com> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent registered each of the <footlockersportinggoodsinternational.com>, <babyfootlocker-clothing-shoes-supplies.com>, <footlockersportinggoodstechnical-shoes-apparel-equipment.com>, <footlockersportingtechnicalinformation-marathontrainingtips.com> and <ladyfootlockersportinggoodsshoes-apparel.com> domain names on July 19, 2002. Each of the five infringing domain names incorporate one of Complainant’s registered marks. Moreover, on two separate occasions Respondent registered at least seven other domain names infringing on Complainant’s marks. These registrations were done despite Complainant’s repeated demands to cease use and transfer the infringing domain name registrations to it. Respondent’s repeated registrations of intentionally infringing domain names, preventing Complainant from adequately reflecting and protecting its marks online, equate to bad faith use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that one instance of registration of several infringing domain names satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 8, 2000) (finding bad faith where (1) the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s SONY marks and (2) Respondent registered multiple domain names which infringed upon the Complainant’s mark).

 

Respondent’s July 19, 2002 registration of the disputed domain names, occurring after it had already received two cease-and-desist letters from Complainant, evidences actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the FOOT LOCKER family of marks prior to registration of the infringing domain names. Furthermore, even if Complainant had not sent this series of cease-and-desist letters, Respondent was put on constructive notice of Complainant’s rights in the FOOT LOCKER family of marks through registration of its marks on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and through the worldwide fame associated with the FOOT LOCKER family of marks. Respondent’s registration of the infringing domain names with actual and constructive notice of Complainant’s rights evidences bad faith registration of the domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Victoria’s Cyber Secret Ltd. P’ship v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 161 F.Supp.2d 1339, 1349 (S.D.Fla. 2001) (noting that “a Principal Register registration [of a trademark or service mark] is constructive notice of a claim of ownership so as to eliminate any defense of good faith adoption” pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1072); see also Reuters Ltd. v. Teletrust IPR Ltd., D2000-0471 (WIPO Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the Respondent demonstrated bad faith where the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s famous mark when registering the domain name as well as aware of the deception and confusion that would inevitably follow if he used the domain names).

 

In light of Respondent’s bad faith registration of the disputed domain names, Respondent’s passive holding of the domain names equates to bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Phat Fashions v. Kruger, FA 96193 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) even though Respondent has not used the domain name because “It makes no sense whatever to wait until it actually ‘uses’ the name, when inevitably, when there is such use, it will create the confusion described in the Policy”); see also Alitalia –Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v. Colour Digital, D2000-1260 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent made no use of the domain name in question and there are no other indications that the Respondent could have registered and used the domain name in question for any non-infringing purpose).

 

The Panel thus finds that Respondent registered and used the <footlockersportinggoodsinternational.com>, <babyfootlocker-clothing-shoes-supplies.com>, <footlockersportinggoodstechnical-shoes-apparel-equipment.com>, <footlockersportingtechnicalinformation-marathontrainingtips.com> and <ladyfootlockersportinggoodsshoes-apparel.com> domain names in bad faith, and that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <footlockersportinggoodsinternational.com>, <babyfootlocker-clothing-shoes-supplies.com>, <footlockersportinggoodstechnical-shoes-apparel-equipment.com>, <footlockersportingtechnicalinformation-marathontrainingtips.com> and <ladyfootlockersportinggoodsshoes-apparel.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

 Sandra Franklin, Panelist

Dated:  February 4, 2003

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page