PAUL PODLUCKY INC v. Chris Lucas
Claim Number: FA0902001245521
Complainant is PAUL
PODLUCKY INC (“Complainant”), represented by Justi R. Miller, of Kelly & Berens, P.A.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <paulpodlucky.com>, registered with Register.com, Inc.
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., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 31, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 16, 2009.
On February 3, 2009, Register.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <paulpodlucky.com> domain name is registered with Register.com, Inc. and that 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 February 19, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 11, 2009 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@paulpodlucky.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 18, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., 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." 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 makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <paulpodlucky.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s PAUL PODLUCKY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <paulpodlucky.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <paulpodlucky.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Paul Podlucky Inc, is a salon, hairstyling, and make up business that has operated since 1979. Complainant is owned by Paul Podlucky, whose fashion services have been given international exposure in magazines and through other media forms. Complainant was incorporated in 2004.
Respondent registered the disputed <paulpodlucky.com> domain name on August 13, 2003. Respondent served as a photo assistant for Complainant for two weeks in 2002, and subsequent to the disputed domain name’s registration, Respondent requested that Complainant purchase the disputed domain name from Respondent for $50,000.
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. 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.”).
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.
The Panel finds that Complainant need not have registered the PAUL PODLUCKY mark with a trademark authority in order to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rather, Complainant may demonstrate common law rights through a showing of sufficient secondary meaning. See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require a trademark registration if a complainant can establish common law rights in its mark); 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 asserts common law rights in the PAUL PODLUCKY
mark dating back to 1979. Complainant
has submitted numerous evidential exhibits demonstrating the use of
Complainant’s services in magazines and culture. The Panel finds that Complainant therefore
has sufficient common law rights in the mark that predate the registration of
the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See James
v. Demand Domains, FA 1106240 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 27, 2007) (“The AMI
JAMES mark has become distinct through Complainant’s use and exposure of the
mark in the marketplace and through use of the mark in connection with
Complainant’s television show, clothing line, and tattoo shop for over
seventeen years.”); see also Winterson v.
Hogarth, D2000-0235 (WIPO May 22, 2000) (finding that ICANN Policy does not
require that the complainant have rights in a registered trademark and that it
is sufficient to show common law rights in holding that the complainant has
common law rights to her name).
Respondent’s <paulpodlucky.com> domain name contains the entire PAUL
PODLUCKY mark while adding the generic top-level domain “.com.” The Panel finds that the disputed domain name
is identical to the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
because all domain names require a top-level domain. See Jerry Damson, Inc. v.
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
has been satisfied.
Complainant has asserted that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Because Complainant has set forth a sufficient prima facie case, Respondent bears the burden of demonstrating that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist); see also Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”).
There is no evidence within the record that allows the
inference that Respondent is or ever was commonly known by the disputed domain
name. The WHOIS information lists
Respondent as “Chris Lucas.” Therefore,
the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests under
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5,
2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the
<lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing
that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS
information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or
license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name); see also Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C. v. Taylor, FA 173369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that
without demonstrable evidence to support the assertion that a respondent is
commonly known by a domain name, the assertion must be rejected).
Complainant alleges that soon
after Respondent registered the disputed domain name, Respondent requested that
Complainant purchase the disputed domain name for $50,000. Without evidence to the contrary, the Panel
finds that this immediate intent to sell the domain name for much more than its
registration costs demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Moreover, the failure to create any active
use of the disputed domain name displays a lack of a bona fide
offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)
or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (holding that where a respondent makes a
“disproportionate” offer to sell its domain name registration to the
complainant for more than its out-of-pocket registration costs, there is
additional evidence that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests
in the disputed domain name); see also
Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v. Sallen,
D2000-0715 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (finding that rights or legitimate interests do
not exist when one holds a domain name primarily for the purpose of marketing
it to the owner of a corresponding trademark).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
There does not appear to be any other use of the disputed
domain name except for Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain name to
Complainant for $50,000. The Panel finds
that Respondent clearly registered and held the disputed domain name with the
intent of selling it to Complainant, and that therefore Respondent engaged in
bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (concluding that
the respondent registered and was using the <gwbakeries.mobi> domain name
in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) where it offered it for sale for far
more than its estimated out-of-pocket costs it incurred in initially registering the disputed domain name); see also Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda. v. Sallen, D2000-0715 (WIPO
Sept. 6, 2000) (“Mere [failure to make an active use] of a domain name can
qualify as bad faith if the domain name owner’s conduct creates the impression
that the name is for sale.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <paulpodlucky.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: April 1, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum