Josephine Wall v. Laura Silva
Claim Number: FA0203000105899
PARTIES
Complainant
is Josephine Wall, Poole, UK
(“Complainant”) represented by David
O'Reilly. Respondent is Mystic
Dreams, San Diego, CA (“Respondent”) Laura
Silva.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is<josephinewall.com>,
registered with Melbourne IT.
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 (“the Forum”)
electronically on March 15, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint
on March 18, 2002.
On
March 19, 2002, Melbourne IT confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <josephinewall.com> is
registered with Melbourne IT and that the Respondent is the current registrant
of the name. Melbourne IT has verified
that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne IT 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
March 19, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of April 8,
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@josephinewall.com by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 5, 2002.
On
April 12, 2002, Complainant filed an untimely additional submission. On April 15, 2002, Respondent filed an
untimely additional submission.
On April 15, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to
have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn
Marks Johnson as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant makes the following
allegations:
Complainant
asserts that it has rights in the mark contained within the identical or
confusingly similar domain name that Respondent registered. Complainant further contends that Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the mark contained in its entirety
within the domain name. Complainant
then urges that Respondent acted in bad faith.
B. Respondent makes the following response
allegations:
Respondent
urges that she had rights in the mark used in her domain name before the
interest taken in the mark by Complainant.
Respondent urges that she obtained rights in the domain name through
bona fide use. Respondent urges that
she did not act in bad faith.
C. Complainant’s Additional Response
Complainant notes that her agent for promotion in the United States is Art
Impressions, Inc.
FINDINGS
The Panel makes
the following relevant findings:
A. Complainant is
an artist who has had an
international market in mystical and
“fantasy”
paintings for 30 years. From Dorset,
United Kingdom, Complainant has common-law rights in her own name when used in
association with her works.
B. Complainant has not given Respondent
rights to use her name and Respondent
has
not shown any such rights.
C. Complainant sent Respondent a cease and
desist letter but received no response from Respondent.
D. Complainant is promoted in the United
States by Art Impressions, Inc.
E.
Respondent,
who is from California, filed the domain name
<josephinewall.com> March 25, 2001.
F.
Respondent
has sold Josephine Wall paintings without apparent right to do so
since February of 1999 at her company “Mystic Dreams.”
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 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;
(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.
The
domain name registered by Respondent, <josephinewall.com>, is
identical to Complainant’s JOSEPHINE WALL mark and the disputed domain name
incorporates the entirety of Complainant’s mark, merely adding the generic
top-level domain name “.com.” See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493
(WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s
mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name
POMELLATO is not relevant); see also Busy
Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) (finding
that "the addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is .
. . without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name
registrants").
Respondent
has “promoted” Complainant’s artwork and claims to be the sole distributor of
Complainant’s artwork in the United States.
Respondent does not give any evidence that she has a license to use
Complainant’s name and mark. One cannot acquire rights by unilateral decisions
to use the mark of another without permission.
The
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant
asserts that as Josephine Wall, the artist, she has rights in the use of her
own name for the sale of her own art. Complainant urges that Respondent is
using the <josephinewall.com> domain name to sell goods that are
not JOSEPHINE WALL paintings and is therefore using Complainant’s mark to sell
competing goods. The Panel may find
that the use of Complainant’s mark to attract Internet users to a website that
sells competing goods is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Assoc. v. Halpern,
D2000-0700 (WIPO Dec. 10, 2000) (finding that domain names used to sell
complainant’s goods without complainant’s authority, as well as others’ goods
is not bona fide use); see also Chip
Merchant, 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).
The
Panel also may find that Respondent, known to the panel as Laura Silva and
Mystic Dreams, is not commonly known by JOSEPHINE WALL or <josephinewall.com>
and therefore does not acquire rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) by unauthorized use of the
mark of another. See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA
96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have
rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark); 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
further asserts that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or
fair use of the disputed domain name because Respondent is using Complainant’s
JOSEPHINE WALL mark to sell goods that are not produced by Complainant and Complainant urges that this activity will
tarnish Complainant’s goodwill.
Furthermore, Complainant maintains, Respondent is using Complainant’s
mark to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website to sell competing
products. The Panel may find that none
of these uses are considered to be a legitimate noncommercial or fair use by
Respondent of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Caterpillar Inc. v. Quin, D2000-0314 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding
that Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in using the domain names
<caterpillarparts.com> and <caterpillarspares.com> to suggest a
connection or relationship, which does not exist, with Complainant's mark
CATERPILLAR); see also Pitney
Bowes Inc. v. Ostanik, D2000-1611 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2001) (finding no rights
or legitimate interests in the <pitneybowe.com> domain name where
Respondent purports to resell original Pitney Bowes’ equipment on its website,
as well as goods of other competitors of Complainant).
Respondent
asserts that she is using the disputed domain name to promote Complainant’s
artwork. Respondent notes that she
bought Complainant’s artwork for resale from Complainant’s distributor in
England. Respondent states that 50% of
the artwork at the disputed domain name is Complainant’s genuine signed limited
edition artwork, and that Complainant’s artwork generates the most sales. Respondent also notes that its website is
the largest single retailer of Complainant’s products on the Internet. Respondent asserts that this establishes
that she is engaging in a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). Respondent did not
mention whether she was an authorized dealer of JOSEPHINE WALL
merchandise. However, Respondent has
not shown that she has a license to do any of the above things and without such
license she did not acquire rights to use Complainant’s name to sell
Complainant’s products and others.
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has
been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant asserts that Respondent has
registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because
Respondent is using the disputed domain name primarily to mislead Internet
users by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship and
affiliation of the goods offered at <josephinewall.com> for
Respondent’s commercial gain. The Panel
may find that this type of behavior is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(b)(iv). See America Online, Inc. v. Tencent Comm. Corp.,
FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent
registered and used an infringing domain name to attract users to a website
sponsored by Respondent); see also Drs.
Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000)
(finding bad faith where the Respondent directed Internet users seeking the
Complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain).
Complainant asserts that Respondent’s
actions have disrupted its business because Respondent is attracting
Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s website where competing goods are
sold. The Panel may find that this type
of behavior is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Southern Exposure v. Southern Exposure,
Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent acted in
bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with
Complainant’s business); see also EthnicGrocer.com,
Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7,
2000) (finding that the minor degree of variation from the Complainant's marks
suggests that the Respondent, the Complainant’s competitor, registered the
names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant's business).
Despite
Respondent’s contention that all of her efforts have been in good faith in
order to promote Complainant’s artwork, Respondent has shown no right to act as
an agent of Complainant and has shown no right to use Complainant’s name in
Respondent’s business dealings.
Further, although Respondent asserts that her efforts dramatically
increased the market for Complainant’s work in the United States, Respondent
makes no showing that Complainant acquiesced to this activity under any
circumstances giving rights to Respondent to act. In addition, Respondent
asserts that her website does not mislead Internet users into purchasing
artwork not created by Complainant and that Respondent regularly “turns in”
people who attempt to infringe on Josephine Wall’s copyright. Respondent further notes that she has not
disrupted Complainant’s business but that instead she has helped it become
popular in the United States market. But under the facts of this case,
Respondent cannot rely on those cases where partnerships are assumed due to the
parties’ prior dealings and understandings because Complainant has expressly
denied such dealings and understandings and Respondent has shown no such
dealings and understandings here. See Gorstew
Ltd. & Unique Vacations v. Twinsburg Travel, FA 94944 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000)
(finding no bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because Respondent and
Complainant are not truly competitors, but in fact are business partners where
Respondent is Complainant’s agent and was acting in good faith on behalf of
Complainant).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been
satisfied.
DECISION
Having found that all three of the required showings
have been satisfied and that the relief sought by Complainant should be granted; it is
accordingly ORDERED that the domain name <josephinewall.com> be transferred
from Respondent to Complainant Josephine Wall.
Hon. Carolyn Marks
Johnson, Panelist
Dated: April 29, 2002.
Click Here to return to the main Domain
Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page