DECISION

 

Barbara Black d/b/a Black and White Consulting v. T1 Communications Company a/k/a Collectionproof.com LLC

Claim Number: FA0304000154144

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Barbara Black d/b/a Black and White Consulting, Naples, FL (“Complainant”).  Respondent is T1 Communications Company a/k/a Collectionproof.com, LLC, Vanderbilt Beach, FL (“Respondent”) represented by Dan Enright.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <collectionproof.com>, registered with Tucows, Inc., and <collectionproof.biz>, registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc.

 

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.

 

Louis E. Condon as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on April 10, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 14, 2003.

 

On April 21, 2003, Tucows, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <collectionproof.com> is registered with Tucows, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. On April 23, 2003, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <collectionproof.biz> is registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows, Inc. and Go Daddy Software, Inc.have verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows, Inc. and Go Daddy Software, Inc. registration agreements 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 April 23, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of May 13, 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@collectionproof.com and postmaster@collectionproof.biz by e-mail.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 27, 2003.

 

On June 5, 2003, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Louis E. Condon as Panelist.

 

Complainant filed an additional submission on June 6, 2003, which was after the deadline. While it did not add anything new to the Complaint, this material contained a brief statement of the allegations and included a copy of the Complaint filed in the Federal District Court. As the Rules permit, it was considered by the Panel for assistance in stating the Complainant’s position.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

 

A. Complainant

           

            Daniel Enright is the owner and authorized representative of T1 Communications Company, and the Respondent herein. Complainant states that Enright worked for her when she started as a consultant for Asset Protection Group, Inc. Since Enright did not want to pay the the $9,800 fee to become a licensed consultant for the parent company himself, Complainant and Respondent agreed that Respondent would work under Complainant’s license as an independent contractor. According to Complainant, there never was a partnership agreement, neither in writing nor verbally. Complainant says the agreement was for the Complainant to pay Respondent 50% of the total commission for the sale to any client he brought to Complainant’s business. Further, Complainant says Respondent made one sale and was paid in accordance with the policy.

 

            Complainant states she took Respondent on board as a contractor under her because Respondent professed to be an expert in the Internet and in sales. In the beginning, when Respondent offered to get the domain name <collectionproof.com> registered Complainant allowed him to do so because Complainant didn’t know how to do it. However, Complainant says she did not fully realize that registering the name would give Respondent ownership of the domain. Complainant placed her website at the domain. Respondent worked under the Complainant for six months during which time he made only one sale. Complainant says Respondent did not follow up leads and appointments paid for and provided by Complainant. Because of his unsatisfactory performance, Complainant let Respondent go.

 

            Complainant says she heard nothing from Respondent for a year, until one day in February, 2003, when he notified Complainant via e-mail that he “was back in my business.” Prior to sending Complainant the e-mail Respondent transferred the domain registration of <collectionproof.com> to another hosting provider, thereby locking Complainant out of access to the site. Respondent then substituted his own contact information on to his copy of Complainant’s site, and has since offered the company products and services under Respondent’s own name.

   

  Complainant’s operating website is <collectionproof.net>.  One of the disputed domains is <collectionproof.com>. The respondent is using <collectionproof.com> for the sole purpose of offering identical services to Complainant’s. In fact, Respondent lifted Complainant’s entire website and placed a copy at this domain. Upon investigation of Complainant’s copyright and trademark claims, the original ISP and registrant, GoDaddy Software, redirected the site. But Respondent has now re-registered the domain <collectionproof.com> in Canada, and once again is offering Complainant’s products and services under his own name and contact information, using an exact copy of Complainant’s website. Many of Complainant’s customers have reported confusion about the address and have mistakenly gone to <collectionproof.com> expecting to find  Complainant’s  company.

 

 

At this time, the Respondent has not yet placed a site at the other disputed domain name of <collectionproof.biz>.

 

Respondent is not licensed with the parent company, Asset Protection Group, Inc., to offer these asset protection services  at  <collectionproof.com>,  whereas Complainant  is licensed with the parent company. Asset Protection Group offers its services and products strictly through licensed consultants. Marketing/advertising of these services/products is the sole responsibility of the licensed consultant. The parent company does not maintain a website or market its services itself. Respondent does not hold the trademark to use this domain name of <collectionproof.com> or <collectionproof.biz>. Respondent does not hold the copyright on the website material that he has placed at <collectionproof.com>. Respondent did not create the website material that he has placed at <collectionproof.com> whereas Complainant holds both the source files for this website material and the copyright/trademark on this material.

  

The Respondent is using an identical copy of Complainant’s  copyrighted website material in its entirety as well as Complainant’s trademarked domain name ‘collectionproof’ for the sole purpose of offering identical services and products, playing on Complainant company’s extensive and good reputation,  essentially posing as the Complainant. Previously, Respondent lifted Complainant’s entire website, word for word and placed it at the <collectionproof.com> domain when it was registered with GoDaddy Software. At Complainant’s request, and upon investigating their copyright and trademark claim, GoDaddy redirected the site. Respondent then re-registered <collectionproof.com> in Canada with registrar Tucows, Inc. and got new hosting with the Canadian ISP ‘AHB dba Telligent Corporation.  Respondent is misleading Complainant’s customers who mistakenly go to <collectionproof.com> into thinking that he is Complainant’s company and can provide them the same services. 

 

Respondent is using these domain names and the copy of Complainant’s website for the sole purpose of commercial and financial gain off Complainant’s good name and business reputation. Complainant states it has lost an estimated $22,000 in revenue from customers who gave Respondent money thinking they  were  dealing  with  Complainant.  This represents bad faith on the part of the Respondent.

 

Complainant alleges that right after the Respondent copied Complainant’s website and placed it at <collectionpfoof.com> he offered to sell the domain names of <collectionproof.com> and <collectionproof.biz> to Complainant for an exorbitant fee, well in excess of the fee required to obtain the domain names. Complainant refused to pay.

 

Complainant’s business, Black and White Consulting, is licensed in Collier County, Florida solely to Barbara Black, license number 002711.

 

Complainant stated in her original submission to NAF that: her attorney had sent a letter of warning to Respondent that he is in copyright and trademark violation of Complainant’s copyrighted website. Respondent was given 10 days to respond and did not; the time period has passed. Complainant is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court on copyright violation, but had not done so at the time of filing this proceeding.

 

 

B. Respondent

 

Respondent and Complainant started a business called “Black & White Consulting”. The venture revolved around the sale of business consulting services, books and corporations. These products were sold in person, via telephone, via radio and via the web. Complainant has a paid for sales relationship with a corporate services provider in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Asset Protection Group, Inc.) Respondent owns all web related aspects except for the joint venture copyright. All revenue were to be shared 50/50 minus some shared expenses.

 

Complainant and Respondent broke off their business relationship in mid February, 2003. Complainant filed for a new Florida Fictitious Name Registration “Black and White Consulting” on February 28, 2003, which Respondent says was an attempt at subterfuge. Complainant caused the dissolution of the jointly filed Florida Fictitious Name registration, “Black & White Consulting,” on April 17, 2003. Respondent filed Criminal Forgery-Alter of Public Record with the Collier County Sheriff’s Office on April 26, 2003, for forgery of Respondent’s signature on the dissolution certificate.

 

On April 3, 2001, Respondent filed and paid for domain registration and hosting of  <Collectionproof.com> at “GoDaddy Software, Inc. Respondent has maintained the hosted domain name in good standing from its date of inception. The site and domain has not changed its primary ownership or basic site/business concept from its inception. Respondent has changed “ISP” hosting company and “DNS” several times over the last two years for practical business and financial purposes. Respondent moved the domain from “GoDaddy Software, Inc.” to “Tucows, Inc.” in defense of ownership. “GoDaddy Software, Inc.” and “Tucows, Inc.” maintain slightly modified and different registration policies.

 

Respondent has personally responded to inquiries and calls generated by this hosted domain, earned income, paid for advertising and hosting the site and the domain name known as <collectionproof.com>. Respondent is not licensed with the “Asset Protection Group, Inc.” as is indicated by Complainant. Respondent operates under the auspices of another legal sales representative of that company. Through that relationship comes fair use of Asset Protection Group, Inc.’s copyrights.          

 

FINDINGS

 

(1)    The domain names registered by the Respondent, to wit: collectionproof.com>

            and <collectionproof.biz> are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or       

            servicemark in which the Complainant has rights;

 

(2)    The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain

  name <collectionproof.com> or <collectionproof.biz>,  and

 

(3)  The domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

 

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 maintains that it has established rights in the COLLECTION PROOF mark through application for registration of the mark on the Principal Register of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as well as through use of the mark in connection with its provision of asset protection and preservation services. 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. Rights in the mark can be established by pending trademark applications); see also British Broadcasting Corp. v. Renteria, D2000-0050  (WIPO Mar. 23, 2000) (noting that the Policy “does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademarks and service marks in the context of abusive registration of domain names” and applying the Policy to “unregistered trademarks and service marks”).

 

Complainant argues that the <collectionproof.com> and <collectionproof.biz> domain names are identical to its COLLECTION PROOF mark. 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 Hannover Ruckversicherungs-AG v. Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (finding <hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as spaces are impermissible in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as ‘.com’ or ‘.net’ is required in domain names”).

 

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Respondent is using the <collectionproof.com> domain name to host a website that is an exact copy of Complainant’s website at the <collectionproof.net> domain name. Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s source code and copyrighted materials are evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See Monsanto Co. v. Decepticons, FA 101536 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2001) (finding that Respondent's use of <monsantos.com> to misrepresent itself as Complainant and to provide misleading information to the public supported a finding of bad faith); See also Vivendi Universal Games and Davidson & Associates, Inc. v. Ronald A. Ballard, FA 146621 (Nat. Arb. Forum  March 13, 2002) (stating that “the wholesale copying of the source code underlying Complainant’s website . . . including Complainant’s copyrighted works and registered trademarks” operated as prima facie evidence that Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).

 

 Respondent’s failure to use the <collectionproof.biz> domain name is evidence that it lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. 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 Chanel, Inc. v. Heyward, D2000-1802 (WIPO Feb. 23, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where “Respondent registered the domain name and did nothing with it”).

 

 

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Complainant maintains that Respondent’s duplicate of Complainant’s website at the <collectionproof.com> domain name disrupts Complainant’s business and diverts revenue from Complainant, evidence that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Surface Protection Indus., Inc. v. Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001) (finding that, given the competitive relationship between Complainant and Respondent, Respondent likely registered the contested domain name with the intent to disrupt Complainant's business and create user confusion); see also SR Motorsports v. Rotary Performance, FA 95859 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2001) (finding it "obvious" that the domain names were registered for the primary purpose of disrupting the competitor's business when the parties are part of the same, highly specialized field).

 

Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of the domain name has intentionally attracted consumers away from Complainant by capitalizing on a likelihood of confusion between the <collectionproof.com> domain name and Complainant’s COLLECTION PROOF mark, evidence that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See America Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to his website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark and offering the same chat services via his website as Complainant); see also Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) (finding that "[w]hile an intent to confuse consumers is not required for a finding of trademark infringement, intent to deceive is strong evidence of a likelihood of confusion").

 

 Respondent’s passive holding of the <collectionproof.biz> domain name amounts to bad faith use and registration of this domain name. See Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) (finding that “it is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent’s offer to sell the <collectionproof.com> and <collectionproof.biz> domain name registrations to Complainant for costs exceeding Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses evidence bad faith use and registration of the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See World Wrestling Fed’n Entmt., Inc. v. Bosman, D99-0001 (WIPO Jan. 14, 2000) (finding that Respondent used the domain name in bad faith because he offered to sell the domain name for valuable consideration in excess of any out-of-pocket costs); see also Dynojet Research, Inc. v. Norman, AF-0316 (eResolution Sept. 26, 2000) (finding that the Respondent demonstrated bad faith when he requested monetary compensation beyond out-of-pocket costs in exchange for the registered domain name). Complainant offered no proof of this allegation; however, it is of no consequences since the Panel found bad faith by the Respondent on other grounds.

 

DECISION

 

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

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <collectionproof.com> and <collectionproof.biz> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Louis E. Condon, Panelist
Dated: June 17, 2003

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page