Square Peg Interactive Inc. v. Naim
Interactive Inc.
Claim Number: FA0311000209572
PARTIES
Complainant
is Square Peg Interactive Inc. (“Complainant”),
5170 Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 170, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-1197. Respondent is Naim Interactive Inc. (“Respondent”),
represented by Dale Cendali of O'Melveny and Myers, LLP, Citigroup Center, 153 East 53rd Street,
New York, NY 10022.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <gototrafficschool.com>
(the “Domain Name”) registered with Network
Solutions, Inc.
PANEL
The
undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to
the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this
proceeding.
Michael
A. Albert as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on November 7, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on November 12, 2003.
On
November 13, 2003, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum
that the domain name <gototrafficschool.com>
is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is
bound by the Network Solutions, 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
November 13, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of December 3, 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@gototrafficschool.com by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on December 3, 2003.
Complainant submitted additional materials dated December 8, 2003. These
additional materials were timely received. Respondent replied to Complainant’s
additional submission in a reply dated December 11, 2003. This reply was also
timely received.
On December 11, 2003, pursuant to Complainant’s request
to have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Michael A.
Albert as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant asserts as follows:
·
Complainant
began using the mark TRAFFIC SCHOOL TO GO (“the Mark”) in commerce at least as
early as March 1998. Complainant registered the mark with the Secretary of
State of California on February 16, 2000. Complainant also has a United States
federal registration for the Mark for educational services, namely for
conducting interactive distance learning courses over the internet related to
driving techniques. The federal registration was issued July 1, 2003.
·
Complainant
operates traffic schools in southern California and surrounding areas under the
name TRAFFIC SCHOOL TO GO. Complainant also does business on the internet at
<trafficschooltogo.com>.
·
Complainant’s
mark TRAFFIC SCHOOL TO GO was well known in the home-study traffic school
industry at the time the Domain Name was registered. Respondent registered the
Domain Name on January 21, 2000.
·
Respondent
operates traffic schools in southern California and other areas under the name
GO TO TRAFFIC SCHOOL and over the internet at the Domain Name.
·
The Domain
Name <gototrafficschool.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark
TRAFFIC SCHOOL TO GO and Complainant’s domain name
<trafficschooltogo.com>.
·
Actual
confusion has occurred as a result of Respondent’s use of the Domain Name.
·
When
Respondent “first started doing business,” Complainant sent a cease and desist
letter to Respondent based on its use of the name “Go To Traffic School.”
Respondent failed to cease using the name.
·
A
representative of Respondent has repeatedly attempted to gain confidential
business information from Complainant.
·
Respondent
has no legitimate rights or interests with respect to the Domain Name.
·
The mark
TRAFFIC SCHOOL TO GO was known to Respondent prior to Respondent’s use of the
Domain Name.
·
The Domain
Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B.
Respondent asserts as
follows:
·
There is no
likelihood of confusion between Complainant’s mark and the Domain Name.
·
The website
at the Domain Name differs markedly from the website at <trafficschooltogo.com>
in that the website at the Domain Name is “colorful” and uses many graphics
while <trafficschooltogo.com> is a text-based website with little
graphics. The tone, look and content of the two websites are different, such
that a consumer would not be confused by their appearance.
·
The term
“traffic school” is generic and commonplace. There are a multitude of companies
offering services with the words “traffic school” in their domain name. The
terms “go to” or “to go” are also generic and commonplace.
·
The domain
name <gototrafficschool.com> carries a different meaning than TRAFFIC
SCHOOL TO GO in that the former use is a phrase of action encouraging the
consumer to “go to the web site” and the latter is an adjective implying that
one can take traffic school “to go.”
·
Any
instances of confusion cited by Complainant are minor or insignificant in view
of the large number of customers served by Complainant and Respondent.
·
During the
employment of Respondent’s Operations Manager, GoToTrafficSchool has never
received a telephone call from a customer confusing GoToTrafficSchool with
Traffic School To Go.
·
Complainant
is barred by laches as Complainant was aware of Respondent’s business and use
of the Domain Name for several years before instituting this action.
·
Respondent
has legitimate rights and interests in the Domain Name.
·
Respondent
uses the Domain Name to operate a bona fide and good faith business in traffic
school services. Respondent’s business started in California and is now
approved for operation in 13 states.
·
The Domain
Name was not registered nor is it being used in bad faith.
·
The Domain
Name was registered and is being used for the primary purpose of promoting
Respondent’s business. Respondent has not registered the Domain Name for the
purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name. In
addition, Respondent holds no other Domain Name registration that bears any
similarity to Complainant’s mark. Complainant did not hold a valid trademark
for TRAFFIC SCHOOL TO GO when the Domain Name was registered in January 2000.
·
Respondent’s
d/b/a application in Los Angeles County under the name GO TO TRAFFIC SCHOOL was
published on four occasions and was never objected to by Complainant.
·
Complainant’s
federal registration for TRAFFIC SCHOOL TO GO postdates the registration of the
Domain Name and Respondent’s d/b/a application.
FINDINGS
The Panel finds as follows:
Complainant, located in Sherman Oaks,
California, began doing business under the Mark TRAFFIC SCHOOL TO GO at least
as early as March 1998. Complainant used and is using the Mark for traffic
school services in southern California. Complainant does business on the
Internet at <trafficschooltogo.com>. Complainant received a State of
California registration for the Mark on February 16, 2000 and a federal
registration for the Mark (Reg. No. 2,732,297) on July 1, 2003.
Respondent, located in Los Angeles,
California, registered the Domain Name <gototrafficschool.com> on January
21, 2000. Respondent published a “Fictitious Business Name Statement” to
publicize her adoption of the fictitious business name “GoToTrafficSchool.com”
four times during January and February of 2001. The copy of this “Fictitious
Business Name Statement” attached to Respondent’s papers notes that Respondent
had yet to transact business under the name “GoToTrafficSchool.com.”
At some point Respondent began doing
business as a traffic school service provider under the name
“GoToTrafficSchool” and on the Internet at the Domain Name. Respondent currently
does business under the name “GoToTrafficSchool” and on the Internet at the
Domain Name.
The Panel takes notice that Sherman Oaks,
CA and Los Angeles, CA are approximately 15 miles apart and are generally part
of the same urban area.
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.
At the time Respondent registered the
Domain Name, Complainant was doing business as a traffic school provider in the
southern California area using the Mark TRAFFIC SCHOOL TO GO and on the
Internet at <trafficschooltogo.com>. One month after registration of the
Domain Name, Complainant obtained a State of California registration for the
Mark. Two years after that, Complainant obtained a federal registration for the
Mark, claiming use dating back to March 1998.
Complainant has shown it has rights in
the Mark TRAFFIC SCHOOL TO GO. See McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair
Competition, § 25:74.2 (4th ed. 2002) (The ICANN dispute resolution policy
is “broad in scope” in that “the reference to a trademark or service mark ‘in
which the complainant has rights’ means that ownership of a registered mark is
not required–unregistered or common law trademark or service mark rights will
suffice” to support a domain name Complaint under the Policy); 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”).
The Domain Name
<gototrafficschool.com> includes the same words as the Mark, although in
a slightly different order.
Respondent argues in its response that
“traffic school” is a generic and commonplace term, undeserving of protection.
Respondent also argues in its reply to Complainant’s additional submission
that “to go” and “go to” are similarly
generic and commonplace. Respondent’s arguments miss the point. Trademark
rights come from using the entirety of a mark, in this case all four words
together, as an identifier of a source of goods or services. The constituent
parts of a mark may or may not be worthy of protection separate from the
entirety of the mark, but that is irrelevant. The mark is analyzed as a whole.
Complainant has made a strong showing
that there is a likelihood of confusion between the Mark TRAFFIC SCHOOL TO GO
and the Domain Name <gototrafficschool.com>, when analyzed in their
entirety. The Domain Name uses the same four words as the Mark, to offer the
same category of goods and services, in an overlapping geographic area. While
Respondent argues that its services are offered in a broader geographic area
than those of Complainant, the Panel finds that confusion could still be likely
in the areas where both names are used.
Indeed, Complainant has offered some
evidence of actual confusion. Attached to Complainant’s additional submission
are what Complainant asserts are examples of correspondence from consumers whom
Complainant alleges were actually confused by the similarity of the Domain Name
to the Mark. Respondent correctly notes that Complainant’s assertions of such
instances of confusion are not made in proper evidentiary form. For example,
they are not attached to an affidavit made under oath, nor is it entirely clear
whether the number of instances of such confusion matches Complainant’s
assertions as to what that number is. Nevertheless, the Panel is persuaded that
there have probably been instances of actual confusion. Evidence of actual
confusion can be a significant factor, under U.S. trademark law, in
establishing that a party’s conduct infringes another’s trademark or service
mark.
The above factors suffice to persuade the
Panel that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which
Complainant owns rights. See NCRAS Mgmt., LP v. Cupcake City, D2000-1803
(WIPO Feb. 26, 2001) (finding the domain name <nationalrentalcar.com>
confusingly similar to the mark NATIONAL CAR RENTAL and holding that “merely
inverting the terms of a mark . . . is insufficient to dispel consumer
confusion; the mark and the resulting domain name are simply too similar to
each other”); see also Playboy Enters. v. Movie Name Co., D2001-1201
(WIPO Feb. 26, 2002) (finding the domain name <channelplayboy.com>
confusingly similar to the mark THE PLAYBOY CHANNEL).
These two criteria are normally treated
separately, but are discussed together here due to the overlapping issues
involved. In determining whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests
in the Domain Name, and whether its registration and use of the Domain Name was
in bad faith, the Panel finds on the facts of this case that the same
fundamental question is posed: Was Respondent, despite adoption of a
confusingly similar mark (incorporated into its domain name), able to build
legitimate rights in that mark during the period of over two years between the
time the Domain Name was registered and the time Complainant brought this action?
As discussed below, in a trademark infringement action between the parties in
which discovery is taken and the issues are aired before a court of competent
jurisdiction, it may well be determined that the answer is no. In this
proceeding, however, Complainant has failed to meet its burden of establishing,
through sufficient evidence, that Respondent lacks legitimate rights in the
Domain Name and that the kind of cybersquatting for which the Policy was
adopted has occurred here.
The Panel finds it instructive to examine
two points in time: first when the Domain Name was registered, and second the
present day use of the Domain Name.
Rights At The Time of Registration of the
Domain Name
It is unclear if Respondent had any
rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name at the time it was registered
(January 21, 2000). As of that time, Complainant had already been doing
business under the name TRAFFIC SCHOOL TO GO and at
<trafficschooltogo.com>.
Use by Respondent of the Domain Name, or
of the name “GoToTrafficSchool” may very well have been an infringing use in
January 2000. Although Complainant did not yet have any registrations of its
Marks, it likely had established trademark rights in the Mark. Trademark rights
under U.S. law derive from commercial use of a mark, regardless of whether it
has been registered. The Panel doubts whether Respondent had any legitimate
rights at this time, but has insufficient evidence before it to come to a final
determination.
Although Complainant alleges that the
Mark was well known in the home-study traffic school industry at this time, it
has not supported this assertion with any evidence. Respondent denies having
heard of it. The denial strikes the Panel as somewhat implausible, considering
Respondent’s adoption of a remarkably similar mark for a remarkably similar
business in a nearby location. It is also interesting that Respondent’s
statement that it did not have prior knowledge of the Mark is not made under
oath. Nevertheless, the burden of proof is on Complainant, and it is
questionable whether the burden has been met. Complainant alleges that
Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s Mark at the time the Domain Name
was registered. Complainant’s evidentiary submissions, however, do not support
this statement. Complainant asserts that Respondent attempted to obtain
Complainant’s confidential materials, but Complainant offers no affidavit or
other testimony to support this contention. See Graman USA Inc. v. Shenzhen
Graman Indus. Co. FA 133676 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 16, 2003) (finding that
absent a showing of any facts by Complainant that establish Respondent lacks
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Panel may
decline to transfer the disputed domain name); see also White Pine Software, Inc. v. Desktop
Consulting, Inc., D2000-0539 (WIPO Aug. 31, 2000) (declining to transfer
the domain name where a full factual record has not been presented to the Panel
such that a conclusive determination can be made regarding the parties’
respective claims to the contested domain name).
Registration of a mark can place other
parties on constructive notice of the mark. Complainant’s state and federal
registrations, however, were not issued until after the Domain Name was
registered. Accordingly, no presumption of constructive notice can apply as of
the date of registration. See Phoenix Mortgage Corp. v. Toggas,
D2001-0101 (WIPO March 30, 2001) (finding that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) “necessarily
implies that Complainant’s rights predate Respondent’s registration . . . of
the domain name”); see also Bus. Architecture Group, Inc. v Reflex
Publishing,
FA 97051 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 5, 2001) (Complainant did not adequately
demonstrate common law rights that predated the domain name registration).
In short, the evidence that is before the
Panel suggests, but does not persuasively establish, that Respondent may have
known of Complainant’s mark and therefore lacked legitimate or good faith
rights in the Domain Name at the time the Domain Name was registered.
Subsequent Use Of, And Rights In, The
Domain Name
Complainant alleges that, when Respondent
“first started doing business,” Complainant sent a letter to Respondent
demanding that Respondent “cease and desist” its use of the name
“GoToTrafficSchool.” A copy of this letter, however, was not submitted to the
Panel. Its exact date and contents are therefore unknown to the Panel.
Complainant further states that it “decided to wait and see if the name was in
practice causing confusion with our potential students and others.” After
apparently determining that it was, Complainant began the present proceeding,
over two years later.
Respondent argues that this delay results
in laches and bars Complainant from obtaining the relief sought here. Although
laches by itself is not a defense to a complaint brought under the Policy,
Complainant’s delay in seeking relief is relevant to a determination of whether
Respondent has been able to build up legitimate rights in the Domain Name in
the interim, and whether it is using the Domain name in bad faith. If a
trademark owner accuses another party of infringement but then fails to pursue
the matter diligently, it may in some cases be concluded that the trademark
owner has abandoned its claim and the accused infringer may be able to build up
trademark rights. Proceedings under the Policy provide for no discovery and
limited procedural avenues for resolving the sort of classic trademark dispute
that has arisen between these parties.
As discussed above, there is little
evidence to suggest that Respondent had rights in the Domain Name at the time
it was registered. There is evidence, however, to suggest that Respondent
currently operates a business in traffic school services using the name
“GoToTrafficSchool.com” and at the Domain Name. Respondent has submitted
evidence that, apart from the trademark issues, its business is a bona fide
enterprise serving a number of courts and communities. While there remains a
legitimate question as to whether Respondent’s business was improperly built on
Complainant’s trademark rights, there is also a legitimate question as to
whether Respondent would have invested the time and effort into building its
enterprise under the name “GoToTrafficSchool” had Complainant more aggressively
pursued its trademark claims at the time Respondent first started doing
business under the name. Respondent may very well have built up its rights
under “GoToTrafficSchool” based on the assumption that Complainant had
abandoned its concerns regarding Respondent’s use of the Domain Name.
One of the obligations incumbent on a
trademark owner who wishes to preserve its rights is to police the use of
business names that may be confusingly similar to the owner’s mark. See
Uptown Entertainment, Inc. v. Kiryakoza, D2002-0065 (WIPO March 14, 2002)
(“Failure of Complainant to police its common law mark would have the effect of
debilitating its mark and its rights in the future to register its
mark.”). Complainant began to do so
when it first sent a letter to Respondent. Whether its subsequent conduct
amounts to abandonment of its rights, whether Respondent relied on
Complainant’s silence while Respondent built its business, and whether
Respondent’s business is now a bona fide enterprise regardless of its
questionable original choice of a mark are all questions that would need to be
resolved in Complainant’s favor to establish that Respondent lacks legitimate
rights in the Domain Name and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. The Panel
cannot answer these questions given the materials that Complainant has placed
before it.
Because the Panel has insufficient
evidence to find that Respondent has no legitimate rights in the Domain Name or
to find that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith,
it concludes that Complainant has not met its burden of proof for these last
two criteria and finds for Respondent.
Nothing
herein is meant to prejudge any issue that might be addressed by a court should
the dispute between the parties end up in that forum. The Policy, however, was
meant to provide a forum for resolving clearer cases of cybersquatting, not
classic trademark infringement disputes. See Stevenson Indus., Inc. v.
CPAP-PRO Online, FA 105778 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 24, 2002) (holding that,
because Complainant bears the burden of
proof under the UDRP, “[i]f the existence of [rights or legitimate interests]
turns on resolution of a legitimate trademark dispute, then Respondent must
prevail, because such disputes are beyond the scope of this proceeding”); see
also AutoNation Holding Corp. v. Rabea
Alawneh, D2002-0581 (WIPO May 2, 2002)
(holding that assertions of trademark infringement “are entirely misplaced and
totally inappropriate for resolution through an ICANN proceeding. The scope of
an ICANN proceeding is extremely narrow: it only targets abusive
cybersquatting, nothing else”).
DECISION
Complainant
has not established the second and third elements required under the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be DENIED.
Michael A. Albert, Panelist
Dated: December 29, 2003
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page