Beaulne, Philippe v. sphere medias et associes
Claim Number: FA1202001431937
Complainant is Beaulne, Philippe (“Complainant”), represented by Nicholas Pergat, Quebec. Respondent is sphere medias et associes (“Respondent”), Quebec.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <couvreursmontblanc.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 28, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on February 28, 2012.
On February 29, 2012, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <couvreursmontblanc.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On March 6, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 26, 2012 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@couvreursmontblanc.com. Also on March 6, 2012, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 9, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has not established rights in the COUVREURS MONT BLANC mark within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
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."
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.
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. 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.”).
Complainant does not argue that it has a trademark registration for the COUVREURS MONT BLANC mark. A trademark registration is not necessary to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), however, if Complainant can demonstrate common law rights in the mark. See SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Masood, D2000-0131 (WIPO Apr. 13, 2000) (finding that the Rules do not require that the complainant's trademark or service mark be registered by a government authority or agency for such rights to exist); see also Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the complainant need not own a valid trademark registration for the ZEE CINEMA mark in order to demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Complainant argues that the name COUVREURS MONT BLANC is incorporated by Complainant and applies to the roofing service provided by Complainant. Complainant attaches a document it describes as proof of incorporation of COUVREURS MONT-BLANC by Complainant. Complainant also includes in its Annex an invoice from the company and a business card showing Complainant’s use of the COUVREURS MONT-BLANC name and mark. Complainant also asserts that it hired Respondent to develop its website in 2003, and therefore presumably Complainant was using the COUVREURS MONT BLANC name/mark in commerce.
A complainant attempting to establish rights in an unregistered mark must provide sufficient evidence of use to establish common law rights and it must show that those rights existed prior to the registration of the domain name which in this case was November 12, 2004. See generally Robert A. Badgley, Domain Name Disputes § 6.03 (2002). The complainant must show that the name has become a distinctive identifier associated with the complainant or its goods or services. Relevant evidence of such "secondary meaning" includes length and amount of sales under the trademark, the nature and extent of advertising, consumer surveys and media recognition. A conclusory allegation of common law or unregistered rights (even if undisputed) would not normally suffice; specific assertions of relevant use of the claimed mark supported by evidence as appropriate would be required. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 1.7 (2d ed.)
On this record, the limited evidence provided by Complainant is insufficient to establish common law rights in its COUVREURS MONT BLANC mark.
Because the Panel concludes that Complainant has not satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the Panel declines to analyze the other two elements of the Policy. See Creative Curb v. Edgetec Int’l Pty. Ltd., FA 116765 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 20, 2002) (finding that because the complainant must prove all three elements under the Policy, the complainant’s failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into the remaining element unnecessary); see also Hugo Daniel Barbaca Bejinha v. Whois Guard Protected, FA 836538 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2006) (deciding not to inquire into the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests or its registration and use in bad faith where the complainant could not satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Finally, the Panel observes that the evidence does not support a determination that Respondent registered the domain name with the intent to be a cybersquatter or to unfairly trade on Complainant’s goodwill. See Celebrity Signatures International, Inc. v. Hera’s Incorporated Iris Linder, D2002-0936 (WIPO Dec. 16, 2002). As noted in the Second Staff Report on Implementation Documents for the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, “Except in cases involving ‘abusive registrations’ made with bad-faith intent to profit commercially from others’ trademarks (e.g., cybersquatting and cyberpiracy), the adopted policy leaves the resolution of disputes to the courts … and calls for registrars not to disturb a registration until those courts decide.” This appears to be a business dispute between the parties, not a dispute that falls within the terms of the UDRP.
Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <couvreursmontblanc.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: April 23, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page