DECISION

 

Skyline Displays, Inc. d/b/a Skyline Exhibits v. Hangzhou Skyi Display Equipment Co., Ltd.

Claim Number:  FA0308000187706

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Skyline Displays, Inc., Eagan, MN (“Complainant”) represented by Thomas J. Oppold, James P. Quinn, and Michael A. Essien, of Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.  Respondent is Hangzhou Skyi Display Equipment Co., Ltd., Hanzhou, Zheijang, China (“Respondent”).

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <skyidisplay.com>, registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide.

 

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.

 

John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on August 21, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 22, 2003.

 

On August 21, 2003, Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <skyidisplay.com> is registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide has verified that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide 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 September 4, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 24, 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@skyidisplay.com by e-mail.

 

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On October 7, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <skyidisplay.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SKYLINE DISPLAYS mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <skyidisplay.com> domain name.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <skyidisplay.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has become a global leader in the manufacture and distribution of display and exhibition boards and signs, portable display and exhibition stands, frames and panels, and portable cabinets and shelving for use at commercial trade shows and exhibitions.  Currently, Complainant has distributor offices throughout the world in 60 different locations in 40 countries outside of the United States, including rental depots/service centers in China.

 

Complainant holds United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Registration No. 1,503,961 for the SKYLINE DISPLAYS mark and Registration No. 1,976,698 for the SKYLINE mark (both registered on the Principal Register on September 13, 1988 and May 28, 1996, respectively).  In addition, Complainant is the holder of Chinese Registration No. 964,852 for the SKYLINE mark under International Class 20 for display boards, display stands, portable display stands and parts and fittings therefore. 

 

Since at least as early as May 1984, Complainant has been continuously using its SKYLINE DISPLAYS and SKYLINE marks in connection with the sale, distribution and advertising of its products for use at commercial trade shows and exhibitions and services in association therewith.  Moreover, Complainant registered the <skylinedisplays.com> domain name on March 25, 1998 and has continuously operated a website under that name. 

 

Respondent registered the <skyidisplay.com> domain name on March 21, 2003.  Respondent is offering for sale various types of display and exhibition boards, portable display and exhibition stands, frames and panels, and portable cabinets and shelving for use at commercial trade shows and exhibitions.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant has established rights in the SKYLINE DISPLAYS and SKYLINE marks through registration of the marks with the USPTO and with China.  Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated that it has rights in the SKYLINE DISPLAYS and SKYLINE marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning”); see also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.  Respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption).

 

Respondent’s <skyidisplay.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark in light of their substantially similar appearance, spelling and sound when pronounced.  The confusing similarity between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s marks is only enhanced by the fact that Respondent offers the same services at its website, located at the <skyidisplay.com> domain name, as Complainant offers at its website, located at the <skylinedisplays.com> domain name.  Consequently, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Slep-Tone Entm't Corp. v. Sounds Choice Disc Jockeys, Inc., FA 93636 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (stating that “likelihood of confusion is further increased by the fact that the Respondent and [Complainant] operate within the same industry”); see also VeriSign Inc. v. VeneSign C.A., D2000-0303 (WIPO June 28, 2000) (finding that the pronunciation and spelling between the domain name <venesign.com> and Complainant’s mark, VERISIGN, are so close that confusion can arise in the mind of the consumer).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has failed to submit a Response to the Panel in this proceeding.  In light of the fact that Respondent has failed to offer any evidence rebutting Complainant’s allegations, the Panel accepts as true all claims set forth by Complainant in the Complaint.  Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <skyidisplay.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).   See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that where Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name it is incumbent on Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); 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”); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a Response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).

 

Despite the fact that Respondent lists itself as Hangzhou Skyi Display Equipment Co., Ltd. in its WHOIS contact information, there is no evidence presented to the Panel showing that Respondent is commonly known by the <skyidisplay.com> domain name prior to registering the domain name.  Moreover, the content on Respondent’s website is almost identical to Complainant’s website which the domain name was registered prior to Respondent’s March 2003 registration of the <skyidisplay.com> domain name. Hence, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name at issue under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail"); see also Yoga Works, Inc. v. Arpita, FA 155461 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003) (finding that Respondent was not “commonly known by” the <shantiyogaworks.com> domain name despite listing its name as “Shanti Yoga Works” in its WHOIS contact information because there was “no affirmative evidence before the Panel that Respondent was ever ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name prior to its registration of the disputed domain name”); see also Web House USA, Inc. v. eDollarShop Hostmaster, FA 155180 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 10, 2003) (finding that Respondent was not “commonly known by” the <edollarshop.com> domain name, despite naming itself “eDollarShop,” because Respondent’s website was almost identical to Complainant’s “first in use” website and infringed on Complainant’s marks).

 

Respondent is using the <skyidisplay.com> domain name to host a website where it sells its products that are identical and in direct competition with products sold by Complainant.  Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc.  v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s appropriation of Complainant’s mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that “[I]t would be unconscionable to find a bona fide offering of services in a [R]espondent’s operation of web-site using a domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and for the same business”).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website.  Respondent registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks and is using that domain name for the promotion and sale of products that are identical to and in direct competition with Complainant’s products.  As a result, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the <skyidisplay.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Am. 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 Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that Respondent had engaged in bad faith use and registration by linking the domain name to a website that offers services similar to Complainant’s services, intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks).

 

Furthermore, Respondent acted in bad faith when it registered the <skyidisplay.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its marks.  By virtue of Complainant’s various registrations of its marks, Respondent was put on constructive notice of Complainant’s rights in its SKYLINE and SKYLINE DISPLAYS marks prior to registration of the domain name at issue.  Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered the <skyidisplay.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration); see also Orange Glo Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2002) (“Complainant’s OXICLEAN mark is listed on the Principal Register of the USPTO, a status that confers constructive notice on those seeking to register or use the mark or any confusingly similar variation thereof”).   

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

 

DECISION

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

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <skyidisplay.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                            John J. Upchurch, Panelist

                                                            Dated:  October 14, 2003

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page


 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page