White Castle Management Co. v. Craig Meyer
Claim Number: FA1410001585453
Complainant: White Castle Management Co. of Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP of Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
Respondent: Craig Von Meyer of Henderson, Nevada, US.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Dot Vegas, Inc.
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC
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 Examiner in this proceeding.
Piotr Nowaczyk, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: October 17, 2014
Commencement: October 21, 2014
Default Date: November 5, 2014
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Procedural Findings:
No multiple complainants or respondents and no extraneous domain names require dismissal.
Findings of Fact:
|
The Complainant is a company registered under the American law. It has been operating in the restaurant and food product industry throughout the United States, since as early as 1921. The Complainant owns a number of trademarks protecting “White Castle” name. Among others, it holds a valid registration for the “WHITE CASTLE” word trademark in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (registration No. 3965928, registration date: May 24, 2011). |
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
Legal Findings and Conclusions:
IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
The disputed domain name, <whitecastle.vegas> is identical to the Complainant's “WHITE CASTLE” trademark since it incorporates the word mark in its entirety. In addition, it is well accepted that the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, thus the “.vegas” is of no consequence here (Facebook Inc. v. Radoslav, Claim Number: FA1308001515825). The Examiner finds that the Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.1. of URS Procedure – the Complainant proved that it holds a valid national trademark (U.S. Reg. No. 3965928 ). Further, the Complainant confirmed that the registered trademark is in current use by presenting screenshots from the Complainant’s website (www.whitecastle.com).
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
To the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent is not commonly known by “White Castle” name. The Complainant has neither licensed nor authorized Respondent to use “WHITE CASTLE” trademark or register a domain name containing this trademark. The Complainant believes that the Respondent did not make a legitimate use of the disputed domain name as it was parked since registered. This assertion is evidenced by the screenshot of <whitecastle.vegas>.
In the absence of any counter arguments and evidences in support of the Respondent’s rights and legitimate interest, the Examiner finds that the second element under URS Procedure 1.2.6.2 has been satisfied.
BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE
The disputed domain names was registered on September 18, 2014 whereas the first “WHITE CASTLE” trademark was registered on August 24, 1948 (U.S. Reg. No. 501821). It might be assumed that the Respondent had knowledge about “WHITE CASTLE” trademark. In view of this, registering a domain name corresponding to a famous and reputable trademark, and subsequent passive holding of such a domain, thus preventing the trademark holder from registering such a domain, may be viewed as bad faith. The Respondent has not submitted any evidences showing an intent of a bona fide use of the disputed domain name. In the absence of any defense which might have affected the decision on this issue, it is found that the third element of the policy under URS Procedure 1.2.6.3 has been satisfied.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:
Piotr Nowaczyk, Examiner
Dated: November 05, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page