DECISION

 

Canada Israel Experience v. Oranim Travel Ltd. c/o Shlomo Lifshitz

Claim Number: FA0312000215312

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Canada Israel Experience (“Complainant”), represented by Igor Ellyn, of Ellyn-Barristers, 121 King Street, Suite 1100, Toronto, ON  M5H 3T9, Canada.  Respondent is Shlomo Lifshitz of Oranim Travel Ltd. (“Respondent”), represented by Dan Or-Hof of Ravia & Co., Law Offices 12 Nachmani Street, Tel Aviv II, 65794, Israel.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <israel4free.com>, <israel4free.net>, and <israel4free.org>, 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.

 

Jacques A. Léger, Q.C. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on November 28, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 3, 2003.

 

On December 4, 2003, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <israel4free.com>, <israel4free.net>, and <israel4free.org> are registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Go Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software, 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 December 12, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of January 2, 2004 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@israel4free.com, postmaster@israel4free.net, and postmaster@israel4free.org by e-mail.

 

A hard copy Response was received on January 5, 2004, three business days after the deadline.

 

The Forum received a timely additional submission on behalf of Complainant on January 7, 2004, pursuant to Forum Supplemental Rule 7.

 

The Forum received a timely Response to the additional submissions on January 12, 2004.

 

On January 12, 2004, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Jacques A. Léger, Q.C. as Panelist.

 

The Panel wishes to point out that even though three domain names are at stake, namely <israel4free.com>, <israel4free.org>, and <israel4free.net>, to reduce the text, it will hereinafter refer to and consider the domain name <israel4free.com> as encompassing the three domain names in question, since in the appreciation of the substantive elements, the extension .org, .com or .net is of no relevance.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A.     Complainant

 

Factual Background

 

           Since 1998, Complainant, Canada Israel Experience, has been a division of UIA Federations CANADA—a national Jewish fundraising organization and community planning body for the Canadian Jewish community. 

 

A major purpose of Complainant is to attract participants, namely Jewish young adults from 18 to 26, to travel to Israel on the “birthright Israel” program. Complainant maintains a national network of local representatives in every major Canadian Jewish community, as well as part-time representatives in most other Canadian cities and in Jerusalem.

 

“Birthright Israel” was initiated by North American Jewish philanthropists.  Its mission is to offer a first time educational peer-group trip to Israel.  “Birthright Israel” accredits Trip Organizers.  Once a Trip Organizer has been accredited, “birthright Israel” provides travel and pays the Trip Organizer a fixed amount for land costs, programming and for attracting the participants.  Since January 2000, Complainant has been an accredited  “birthright Israel” Trip Organizer.  Complainant is the largest trip organizer in Canada.  

 

Respondent, established in Lyndhurst, Ohio, operates several commercial websites that provide tours and vacation packages to Israel.  Since 2001, Respondent has been an accredited Trip Organizer with “birthright Israel”.  According to its website, <israel4free.com>, Respondent registers “birthright Israel” participants from all over the United States and Canada.  Respondent and Complainant are competitors for “birthright Israel” participants in Canada.  

 

Respondent registered the domain names <israel4free.com>, <israel4free.net>, and <israel4free.org> (collectively <israel4free.com>) on December 25, 2001, 17 months after the launch of Complainant’s <israelforfree.com> website. Respondent operates the websites through an entity called Oranim Educational Initiatives.

 

Beginning in February 2002, Respondent began using the domain names to compete unfairly by attracting a segment of Complainant’s “birthright Israel” participants. Respondent only markets <israel4free.com>, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s domain name.  By entering the domain names <israel4free.org> and <israel4free.net> in a browser, the Internet surfer is immediately transferred to the <israel4free.com> site.  Interference with traffic to Complainant’s website by the intervention of Respondent’s confusing domain name has substantially affected the number of registrations received by Complainant.

 

Rights In Mark

 

Since August 2000, Complainant has sought participants to the program by using and establishing the trademark ISRAELFORFREE.COM by several means, including but not limited to the following: a website at <israelforfree.com> since August 2000; sponsored billboards; posters; full page advertising in The Canadian Jewish News; a calendar; a Frisbee; double-sided flyers; a bulletin board poster with six tear-off reminder cards; three additional display newspaper advertisements which appeared in Jewish community publications across Canada; and concerts with marketing materials for participants.

 

All of Complainant’s marketing efforts are geared toward leading participants to the <israelforfree.com> website, registered on August 8, 2000, which contains detailed information about Complainant’s trips and allows online registration.

 

The common law trademark ISRAELFORFREE.COM is a suggestive mark that evokes or suggests a characteristic of the underlying services.  Suggestive marks are inherently distinctive and are given a high degree of protection.

 

Complainant has an established reputation as ISRAELFORFREE.COM as the largest and most experienced “birthright Israel” Trip Organizer in Canada.  It provides participants with a unique and unparalleled Israel experience with the highest quality of education, logistics, and safety.  Since the launch of “birthright Israel,” over 5,500 young adults have traveled to Israel on trips organized by Complainant, and most of them are attracted by the information on the website.

 

Complainant has spent a considerable amount of money, time, and effort in establishing an association between its website and its services over nearly three years.  Complainant has invested substantial resources, amounting to more than $100,000 (Canadian) to develop the ISRAELFORFREE.COM mark, consisting of billboards, pamphlets, articles, posters, newspaper advertisements, bookmarks, Frisbees, promotional parties, and concerts.  Panels have held that trademark rights may accrue quickly on the Internet due to the accelerated speed at which it allows information to be distributed.  See Exario Networks Inc. v. Domain Name You Have Entered is For Sale, AF-0538 (eResolution Dec. 11, 2000).

 

Identical or Confusingly Similar

 

Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, as they are phonetically identical and visually similar.  The only difference is Respondent’s substitution of the word “for” with the common shorthand for the word “4".  In support of this, Complainant refers to PrintForBusiness B.V v. LBS Horticulture D2001-1182 (WIPO, December 21, 2001), where the domain name “print4business.com” was found to be confusingly similar to “printforbusiness.com.”  See also eSales & Mktg., Inc. v. Traino FA 156315 (Nat. Arb. Forum, June 19, 2003), where the domain name <candy2u.com> was confusingly similar to <candy2you.com>.

 

Respondent’s registration of the domain names is likely to cause confusion as to the source and sponsorship of the web site, since a visitor to Respondent’s web site is likely a potential customer of Complainant.  Complainant received two letters from Canadian participants who were confused by the domain names.  They were looking for the Canadian “birthright Israel” trip organizer but were led to Respondent’s site <israe4free.com> and did not appreciate until the last moment that there was a difference between <israelforfree.com> and <israel4free.com>.  Undoubtedly, there are many Canadian participants who were misled and traveled with Respondent.  Once connected to Respondent’s websites, the potential registrants will be further confused to believe that they have in fact connected to Complainant’s official web site since both parties offer the same services on their websites.

 

Rights and Legitimate Interest

 

Where there is a direct competitive relationship between Complainant and Respondent, it is difficult to conceive of any legitimate use Respondent could make of the domain name as a means to attract registrants in Canada.  See Packaging World Inc. v. Zynpak Packaging Prods.  Inc., AF-0233 (eResolution July 28, 2000).

 

Long before Respondent first began using its domain name, it was aware of Complainant’s trademark israelFORfree.com.  At that time Complainant was already the leading “birthright Israel” Trip Organizer in Canada.  The knowing use of a domain name that infringes on trademark rights is unlikely to be bona fide, and is therefore incapable of giving rise to a legitimate right or interest.  See Nasdaq Stock Mkt. Inc. v. Green Angel, D2001-1010 (WIPO September 30, 2001).

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its trademark or to apply for any domain name incorporating the mark.

 

Respondent is not known commonly by the domain names <israel4free.com> but uses them only to divert Internet users looking for Complainant’s website to their own, which competes directly with Complainant.

 

In fact, Respondent’s main travel agency site, <israel4u.com>, has a hyperlink to “Free 10 days tour of Israel, Jewish 18-26 year olds”.  Clicking this link refers the user to another site, <funtour.co.il>, which contains the headline “Free 10 days Tour of Israel – birthright Israel mission”.  The second hyperlink on this site reads “If you are from Canada register here.”  Clicking on this hyperlink transfers the web user to the registration page of <israel4free.com>, the impugned domain name site.  This demonstrates that Respondent is able to market its “birthright Israel” programs from its own website.  The use of the confusingly similar domain name can therefore have but a single purpose, namely, to attract Complainant’s registrants.

 

Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name but is using the names simply to divert Internet users.

 

Bad faith

 

By using a confusingly similar domain name to that of Complainant’s trademark, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s web site.

 

Respondent’s intention may be determined by common sense inferences from circumstantial evidence.  See New York Times Co.  v. New York Time Internet Servs., D2000-1072 (WIPO December 5, 2000).

 

Since the inception of “birthright Israel”, Complainant has always maintained a dominant position in the Canadian market.   During the winter 2001, spring 2001 and winter 2002, Respondent attracted 272 Canadian participants, while Complainant attracted 2,397.

 

Since Respondent began using the domain name in February 2002, Complainant has lost a significant percentage of market share of Canadian participants.  At the same time, Respondent’s Canadian market share has increased from 9% to about 21%.  The inescapable conclusion is that Respondent’s increase is due to the confusingly similar domain name.

 

Respondent failed to make any good faith inquiries to whether its use of the domain names would infringe the rights of Complainant; this is an element of bad faith. See Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp. v. Sound Choice Disc Jockeys, Inc., FA 93636, (Nat. Arb. Forum March 13, 2000).

 

B. Respondent

 

Factual Background

 

Respondent was founded in 1986 as a resource for Israeli schools traveling in Israel. Over the years, it developed to be the leader in Jewish Educational Travel Worldwide. Respondent also operates school trips for Jewish and public schools in the Unites States, offers programs for the learning of Hebrew, Pilgrimage tours for Christians to Israel and specialty and incentive tourism to any destination world wide.

 

Respondent became an accredited birthright Israel tour organizer in 2001. Respondent is a unique tours organizer in many ways: it is the only organizer that both recruit participants and provides the services in Israel, and it is the most international operation. The large majority of Respondent's birthright Israel program participants come from Jewish communities in the United States, where by the year 2003, Respondent evolved to be the largest birthright Israel tour organizer and the second largest in Canada.

 

Respondent has its headquarters in Israel, but also maintains an office in Lyndhurst OH, Chicago, Il, and Boca Raton, Fl, and marketing representatives in the UK, Mexico, Germany, Hungary and Russia.  

 

Respondent was not aware at the time of the domain name registration of the fact that Complainant was using the domain name <israelforfree.com>. The idea to utilize the domain name came from 2 reasons: (1) the name was "catchy" and reduced the idea of the birthright Israel tours into one phrase, and (2) the name suited the "family" of Respondent's already existing websites, which were maintained for other projects, like "israel4u.com" and "travel4teens.com".

 

Shortly after the registration of the domain name and ever since, Respondent has been marketing it as the online center for its activities with the birthright Israel program. Its marketing campaigns, summing up to $140,586, included: hundreds of advertisements in numerous different newspapers; over five hundred television commercials; various Internet advertisements; flyers; postcards; bumper stickers; brochures; luggage tags; clothing items; posters; briefcases; and CDs.

 

Respondent has been maintaining a vibrant web site under the domain name since February 2002.  The web site consists of hundreds of web pages, including, inter alia, information about the program.  Respondent also manages a considerable part of its birthright Israel service, via electronic mail, by using and maintaining 31 active e-mail addresses under the domain name.  Respondent's web site has gained considerable traffic rates, reaching the top 25,000 most visited sites in the world.

 

For three years, Complainant had an almost monopoly on the recruitment of participants in Canada for birthright Israel programs.  Over time, Respondent became the second largest in Canada and began to threaten Complainant's hegemony.  Complainant has been doing everything in its power to restrict its recruitment efforts in Canada.  The dispute raised in these proceedings is nothing more than an additional effort to eliminate its main competitor and to regain its hegemony in Canada.

 

For almost two years, Complainant took no action whatsoever to stop Respondent's use of the domain name.  Complainant did not claim and provided no evidence to prove that any similar actions were taken against other birthright Israel organizers.

 

Identical or Confusingly Similar

 

The term "Israel For Free" is commonly used by various birthright Israel approved organizers, as part of their service description.  The term is a combination of ordinary words in the English language and describes the very essence of birthright Israel tours – "go to Israel for free."  The term does not connote the individualized characteristics of Complainant's service.  See, e.g., Chromalloy Men's Apparel Group, Inc. v. Burch & Hatfield Formal Shops, Inc., D2000-1046 (WIPO Oct. 20, 2000); Matchnet PLC v. Josh Joffe, FA 159456 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2003); Morgan v. Parke d/b/a Trancenet Media, FA 211938 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 14, 2003).

 

The term, when used in connection with obtaining a free tour to Israel, is therefore either generic or highly descriptive, as it is used to identify the main proposition of a birthright Israel tour.  See, e.g., CharterAuction.com, Inc. v. Pacific Luxury Air, D2003-0801 (WIPO Dec. 2, 2003); snowboards-for-sale.com Inc., v. Name Admin. Inc., D2002-1167 (WIPO Feb. 19, 2003); Bar Code Discount Warehouse Inc. v. Barcodes Inc., D2001-0405 (WIPO July 27, 2001); Mil-Mar Shoe Co., Inc., v. Shonac Corp., 75 F.3d 1153 (7th Cir. 1996).

 

A party who seeks to establish exclusive rights in a descriptive term carries a heavy burden of proof in removing the term from the public domain and must provide significant evidence of distinctiveness, such as five years of exclusive use (CharterAuction.com, supra; snowboards-for-sale.com Inc., supra; 15 U.S.C. §1052(f) (2002)), which Complainant did not manage to do, having failed to carry the substantial burden of proving that the term acquired a "secondary meaning."  Zatarains, Inc., v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc., 698 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1983); Arizona Golf Props., Inc., v. Benigno, D2003-0571 (WIPO Oct. 6, 2003).  Nothing in Complainant's evidence suggests that the consuming public affiliates the term specifically with Canada, or with a Canadian birthright Israel organizer.  Complainant has therefore failed to prove that the minds of the consuming public, throughout the world, are set to associate the term exclusively with Complainant.

 

The term is neither Complainant's name, nor the name of any of its services.

 

Complainant supplied insufficient documentation to determine the volume and scale of the means allegedly used to establish trademark rights in the term because it presented a roughly estimated figure to describe the alleged invested sum in developing the term.  No detailed evidence was provided to describe the volume of use of the various marketing products, the dates, the extent of circulation, or any other detail, which would correlate the alleged estimated figure with the alleged use of marketing products.  No affidavits or statements were provided to support such assertions.  See Molecular Nutrition, Inc., v. Network News and Publ’n., FA 156715 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2003).

 

Complainant used and is still using its own name to operate at least part of its online birthright Israel activities in the web site <CanadaIsraelExperience.com>.  Prior to the registration of the domain name, Complainant used the domain name <israelforfree.com> only to divert Internet users to their main web site.  In Fact, Complainant has started operating a separate web site under <israelforfree.com>, sometime between February 13th, 2002 and May 25th, 2002, i.e., only after Respondent has started operating the domain name.  Complainant therefore cannot assert that potential registrants for birthright Israel tours exclusively identify Complainant with the term.

 

Rights and Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant notified Respondent of the dispute as late as October 10th, 2003, almost 2 years after the domain name registration.

 

Respondent registered a descriptive domain name, which consists of a generic word "Israel" and a common abbreviation used in many domain names "4free".  The domain name replaced <funtour.co.il> as the online center for all Respondent's birthright Israel activities.

 

Respondent’s use of the domain name has been and still is in connection with a bona fide offering of its birthright Israel service and has been so, well in advance of any notice of dispute presented by Complainant.  See Advanced Comfort Inc. v. iNET image, Inc., D2003-0016 (WIPO Feb. 24, 2003).

 

Following initial operation of its services, Respondent has been massively advertising its activities and the domain name and has done so well prior to any notice of the dispute.  See, e.g., Rollerblade, Inc. v. CBNO, D2000-00427 (WIPO Aug. 24, 2000); BeMusic, Inc. v. Music Trading On-Line, Ltd., FA 193874 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 10, 2003).  Respondent has spent a considerable amount of labor and financial resources, in order to advertise, market and promote the domain name.  Gradually Respondent's birthright Israel activities have become commonly associated with the domain name.

 

During the long period of time between the date of registration and the day of notice, Complainant and Respondent conducted business relations.  Complainant had numerous opportunities to advise Respondent of a potential dispute over the domain names, but refrained from doing so.

 

Respondent had no intentions whatsoever to misuse the domain name, or to cause any confusion between its birthright Israel activities and those of Complainant.  Respondent conducted legitimate use of its domain name and did nothing to intentionally attract customers of Complainant.  Complainant has acted in bad faith by asserting otherwise.

 

Each and every web page in the domain name bears Respondent's logo.  Such is the case in its newspaper advertisements and in the majority of its other forms of marketing. Respondent has clearly done so in order to associate the domain name with it and not to create a likelihood of confusion.

 

The two letters provided by Complainant regarding alleged evidence of actual confusion cannot prove a wide spread phenomena.  Clearly the average online user would not overlook the numerous references in the domain name to the source and sponsorship of the web site.  Respondent has never received any complaints of that kind.

 

Respondent operates the web site as the main resource for all of its birthright Israel activities throughout the world.  Furthermore, its activities in North America are mainly focused in the US market, rather than in Canada.  Therefore, its web site was not created and is not used specifically to compete with Complainant's web site.

 

The term “Israel for free” is in use by third parties, and Respondent registered it in a legitimate domain name, registering on a first come, first served basis.  Car Toys Inc. v. Informa Unlimited, Inc., FA 93682 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 20, 2000); The VideoCall Co. v. M Koenig  FA 167922 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 20, 2003).

  

   Bad faith

 

Respondent registered the domain name without the knowledge of Complainant's use of <israelforfree.com>.  No official registration office could have made it aware of Complainant's use of the term, since Complainant did not apply to register the term as a trademark in Canada or elsewhere.

 

Respondent could not, and in fact did not prevent Complainant from reflecting any mark in a corresponding domain name, nor did made attempts to sell the domain name. It neither registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant, nor with any such intent.

 

Respondent's share of the Canadian market has dropped from 2001 (before registration of the domain name) to 2002 (after the registration), both in the winter and the spring terms. The number of participants through its service dropped once more in winter 2003, when compared to the previous winter term.  In contrast, Complainant has gained an increase in the number of participants through its service from winter 2002 to winter 2003.  Only in spring 2003 a dramatic increase occurred in the number of Respondent's participants, due mainly to its successful Ambassador Recruitment Project.  Complainant's number of participants has also increased dramatically (by 363%), from winter 2002 to winter 2003. Nothing in the chart suggests any correlation with Respondent's use of the domain name.

 

Respondent did not intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s alleged mark. As the term is publicly available, no use of the domain name could have constituted use in bad faith of Complainant's alleged marks.

 

Complainant did not provide evidence of any behavior by Respondent that suggests that it registered or used the domain name in bad faith.  See Dollar Fin. Group, Inc. v. Lee, FA 190515 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 16, 2003).

 

Laches

 

Complainant has brought the dispute to the awareness of Respondent nearly two years after the registration of the domain name, during which time Respondent has invested considerable amount of time, money and efforts in developing the web site and in marketing its birthright Israel activities under this domain name.  Prior to the notice of dispute, Complainant never claimed that the domain name infringed on its claimed mark and/or violated the ICANN Policy.

 

An order for the transfer of the domain name would result in substantial undue hardship for Respondent and such relief should not be granted in these proceedings.  See, e.g., BeMusic, supra; HeadRoom Corp. v. Comitini, FA 102522 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 27, 2001).

 

 

C. Additional Submissions

 

By Complainant

 

If Respondent knew about the nature and scope of Complainant’s business in a market it was hoping to tap, it is inconceivable that it did not know of Complainant’s domain name <israelforfree.com>as all of Complainant’s recruitment was done through it.

 

Michael Eglash is an Israel-based marketing consultant who had been an acquaintance of Lorne Klemensberg, the Director of CIE’s office in Israel. In late February 2000, Klemensberg and Adam Minsky met with Eglash to discuss the possibility of Eglash working to recruit Canadian participants for CIE’s birthright Israel program.

 

The birthright Israel program was operating from February 2000.  Klemensberg’s e-mail communications to Eglash referred to the websites, <israelforfree.com> and <canadaisraelexperience.com>, as part of his coordinates.  Klemensberg and Minsky explained to Eglash that <israelforfree.com> was used by CIE for birthright Israel programs and that <canadaisraelexperience.com> was used for all of CIE’s other Israel programming.  Consequently, it is inconceivable that Eglash was unaware that CIE’s web-based recruitment was through the <israelforfree.com> domain name.  At that time, Eglash was just organizing his business and CIE decided not to use his services.

 

Klemensberg arranged for a follow-up meeting with Eglash and Minsky in the spring of 2001.  The possibility of Eglash working as a recruiter for CIE birthright Israel programs was again discussed but CIE decided not to use Eglash’s services.

 

On December 7, 2001, Klemensberg and Minsky had a further meeting with Eglash, who by this time had set up a company, Upstart Activist, who provided a resume as well as a business plan.  Once again CIE decided not to retain him.

 

Eglash began working for Oranim on December 23, 2001, just two weeks after his presentation to CIE.   On December 25, 2001, only 17 days after the meeting with Minsky, Eglash registered the domain name on behalf of Oranim.  It is completely inconceivable that he did not know that CIE was recruiting birthright participants through the website <israelforfree.com>.

 

Shlomo Lifshitz met with Minsky and Klemensberg on numerous occasions through 2002, during which times they raised the issue of Oranim’s use of the domain name which was passing itself off as <israelforfree.com>, however Lifshitz refused to recognize that Oranim’s use of a confusing domain name was unjustified.

 

Complainant’s trademark is ISRAELFORFREE.COM and not ISRAELFORFREE as stated in the Response.  CIE has spent substantial resources in developing this trademark.   ISRAELFORFREE.COM has become distinctive of Complainant and of its services.  See Nat’l Assoc. of Prof’l Baseball Leagues, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003).

 

Complainant’s common law trademark is not generic—one that is commonly used to name or designate a kind of goods—nor highly descriptive—one that describes the ingredients, qualities, or characteristics of an article of trade or a service.

 

It is unnecessary for Complainant to establish that the “consuming public affiliates the [trademark] with Canada...” but that it associates it with its services.

 

The case of Molecular Nutrition Inc., v. Network News and Publ’n FA 156715 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2003) does not stand for the proposition that Complainant needs to provide documentation to prove “volume and scale of the means allegedly used to establish trademark rights,” but, rather, that Complainant needs to show the volume and scale of its sales.

 

The domain names were not chosen because of Respondent’s birthright Israel activities or because they fit into a larger branded “family” of web sites.  Rather, it appears that Respondent, assisted by its newly-engaged agent Eglash, was attempting to divert Complainant’s Canadian registrants to Respondent’s web sites.  Eglash had full knowledge of Complainant’s trademark prior to working for Respondent.  It is too coincidental and inconceivable that Eglash would register a confusingly similar domain name just two weeks after being rejected by CIE.

 

Complainant advised Respondent of its offending domain name on several occasions beginning in early 2002.  All of Respondent’s evidence presented was initiated after notice of the dispute and as such cannot be used to support a claim for rights or legitimate interest.

 

Although the domain names were created specifically to attract the US market and Respondent has done very little marketing in Canada, it has increased its market share dramatically.  It is clear that its success comes from the diversion of registrants from Complainant.

 

Respondent has not demonstrated any use by third parties of Complainant’s trademark “israelforfree.com.”  Complainant’s common law trademark, ISRAELFORFREE.COM, has not been shown to be “publicly available.”   Complainant, CIE, has acquired goodwill in the domain name <israelforfree.com>, which Respondent has wrongfully and manifestly sought to erode.

 

            By Respondent

 

The fact that Respondent knew of Complainant's control over the Canadian market does not suggest in any way that it was aware of Complainant's use of <israelforfree.com> prior to the registration of its domain name.  Complainant's position in the Canadian market had nothing to do with its use of <israelforfree.com>.  Since until sometime between February and May 2002, Complainant's use of israelforfree.com was marginal and insignificant.

 

Eglash has created his company (Upstart Activist) together with Eric Esses in October 2001.  During the late Fall 2001, Esses contacted a birthright Israel representative, prior to which Upstart Activist had no business relations with any of birthright Israel organizers.

 

In December 2001, Upstart Activist decided to approach the organizers with the proposition that went beyond activist training for the sake of improving Israel’s public relations on campus.  They did not send Complainant their proposal, and naturally, Complainant did not respond it.

 

It was then that Upstart Activist conceived of teaching participants how to recruit more participants for the program.  Respondent responded to the proposal and its business relationship with Upstart Activist evolved into a wider cooperation.  As a result, Upstart Activist supplied Respondent recruitment services exclusively and refrained from accepting offers from other organizers—including Complainant—who wished to retain their recruitment services.

 

Delivering pro-Israel activist training seminars and teaching recruitment methods are two different and separate activities.  Upstart Activist offered Complainant the former, but has never offered the latter.

 

Eglash did not attend any meeting with Minsky and Klemensberg in late February 2000, nor in the spring of 2001.  In fact, at those times, Eglash was employed by Adero, a telecommunications company.  No discussion regarding <israelforfree.com> could have occurred in late February 2000, since the domain name was registered only six months later.

 

In the meeting of December 7, 2001, the discussions were focused on providing activist training services to students and on considering the position of Eglash as a "Shaliach" (emissary) and not on recruitment services.  There was not any discussion whatsoever regarding Complainant's web site.  Complainant did not follow-up with any additional correspondents regarding the "Shaliach" position and only retained Upstart Activist's Pro-Israel Israel Activist training services a year later in December of 2002.

 

Neither Klemensberg nor Minsky provided at any time <israelforfree.com> as part of their “coordinates” in their correspondence with Eglash and Esses.  In fact, Klemensberg has consistently and continuously provided <CanadaIsraelExperience.com> in his e-mails.

 

The first time that Esses and Eglash have seen Klemenberg refer to <israelforfree.com> in a correspondence is in his Statement of to the National Arbitration Forum on January 8, 2004!  When observing the details presented in Klemensberg’s statement, it is evident that the web site <israelforfee.com> is written in a different font than the rest of the details, which may lead to believe that Klemenberg changed the name of the web site, from <CanadaIsraelExperience.com> to <israelforfree.com>, only in his statement of January 8.

 

In the Spring of 2003, Klemensberg proposed Eglash that Complainant retain Upstart Activist’s recruitment services for the birthright Israel program, and this was the first time they discussed retaining Upstart Activist's recruitment services.  Upstart Activist rejected its offer due to its longstanding and exclusive relationship with Respondent regarding recruitment services.

 

On December 1, 2003 Klemensberg contacted Esses asking him to retain its Israel Activist Training and educational services but Upstart Activist decided against this proposal as well.

 

Eglash was unaware of the <israelforfree.com> site in advance of purchasing the domain name, and there is no reason why he should have, since it is clear from the email communications of Klemensberg that only <canadaisraelexperience.com> was used in all correspondence, that the meetings were about the provision of activist training to Canadian students and not about recruitment services and that during December 2001, Complainant's use of <israelforfree.com> was insignificant.

 

Lifshitz and Minsky discussed joint programs as well as Lifshitz's contentions against Complainant's underhanded attempts to undermine Respondent's activities in the Canadian Market.  The subject of Respondent's web site was not raised in these meetings.

Respondent resents Minsky's portrayal of Respondent as a mere "for profit" business. Minsky is well aware that Respondent is focused on Educational initiatives, on Zionism and on the love of Israel.  He is also well aware of Respondent's contribution to bringing close together Israel and Jewish communities, throughout the world.

 

Had Respondent used its web site to channel potential participants from Complainant's programs, then, surely, its numbers would have shown a consistent growth since the initial utilization of the web site.  This is not the case as the statistics reflect a drop in the number of participants once it began using the domain name and a slow rise after this, due to the increasing success of the Ambassador Program.

 

It is well established that a generic top-level domain (gTLD) has no source identification function and cannot serve any trademark purpose.  See, e.g., Wollongong City Council v. Viva La Gong, D2003-0113 (WIPO April 2, 2003); Kirkbi AG v. Dinoia, D2003-0038 (WIPO March 9, 2003); Excmo. Cabildo Insular de Tenerife and Promocion Exterior de Tenerife, S.A. v. Jupiter Web Servs., Ltd., D2003-0525 (WIPO Sep. 9, 2003).  Thus Complainant cannot assert trademark rights over "israelforfree.com", in separate from the second level domain "israelforfree".

 

 

DISCUSSION & FINDINGS

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 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;

(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.

 

 

Preliminary Finding on the Admissibility of the Response

 

The Panel was informed that the Forum received the Response, which did not comply with submission formatting guidelines, after the January 2, 2004 deadline, as the forum received two hard copies of the Response on January 4, 2004.

 

As decided in Telstra Corp. v. Chu, D2000-0423 (WIPO June 21, 2000), any weight to be given to the lateness of the Response is solely in the discretion of the Panel.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent failed to timely submit a Response to the Forum.  Therefore, stricto sensu, Respondent did not comply with ICANN Rule ¶ 5, which reads as follows:

           

            The Response

(a)      Within twenty (20) days of the date of commencement of the administrative proceeding Respondent shall submit a response to the Provider.

(b)  The response shall be submitted in hard copy and (except to the extent not available for annexes) in electronic form …”

 

While the Panel is under no obligation to accept the deficient Response, the Panel nevertheless accepts it, considering the explanation provided by Respondent that states that a hard copy of the response was delivered on time to Complainant, through the services of DHL on Friday, January 2, 2004, at 11:08.  The Panel, proprio motu, visited the DHL website at  <dhl.com>, as suggested by Respondent, and by pressing the Shipment Air Waybill number (4825635194) under "DHL Fast Track," found that the

Response had indeed been timely delivered to Complainant.

 

All in all, the Panel accepts the Response as it has been sent, subject of course to its substantive value.  See Strum v. Nordic Net Exch. AB, FA 102843 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2002), wherein it was ruled that declaring a Response inadmissible because of formal deficiencies would be an extreme remedy not consistent with the basic principles of due process.

 

            Preliminary finding on the defense of laches

 

Respondent offers the equitable defense of laches.  Panels have held that defenses in equity are outside the scope of the Policy.  On this matter, the Panel adopts the findings of Square Peg Interactive, Inc. v. Naim Interactive, Inc. FA 209572 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 29, 2003), wherein it was stated that “laches by itself is not a defense to a complaint brought under the Policy.”  See also E.W. Scripps Co. v. Sinologic Indus., D2003-0447 (WIPO July 2, 2003), wherein it was stated that “if the requirements of a valid complaint under the policy are established, the Policy does not provide any defense of laches.”  The Panel has therefore elected to ignore allegations concerning this aspect and analyze the case in the scope set out by the Policy.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

            Complainant’s rights in the mark

 

In this proceeding, Respondent has raised the crucial question as to whether Complainant has rights in the alleged mark ISRAELFORFREE.COM in order to meet the requirements set forth in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  Respondent has put forward several arguments revolving around this very issue and for that reason, the Panel has reviewed it exhaustively, as failure to meet this burden leads automatically to a rejection of the Complaint.

 

Complainant relies on its common law rights in ISRAELFORFRE.COM as a mark that predates Respondent’s domain name registration.  Complainant states that it has established common law rights in the ISRAELFORFREE.COM mark through its possession of the <israelforfree.com> domain name since August 8, 2000, the date of registration.  Complainant further affirms that it is the largest trip organizer in Canada and that as such, the public has come to associate the ISRAELFORFREE.COM mark with Complainant.  See British Broad. Corp. v. Renteria, D2000-0050 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2000), wherein it was noted that the Policy “does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademarks and service marks in the context of abusive registration of domain names” and applied the Policy to “unregistered trademarks and service marks.”

 

On the other hand, Respondent states that there are many other websites offering the birthright Israel program that use the terms “Israel for free” and that therefore, Complainant cannot contend to have exclusive rights in that term.  The Panel however has noted that none of these websites use it in the same manner, i.e. as a slogan or motto, but rather as part of a full text, i.e. amid a sentence, rendering Respondent’s contention irrelevant.

 

Respondent also argues that the term “Israel for free” is generic and/or descriptive, and consequently Complainant does not have rights in the mark since it has not provided sufficient evidence in order to establish secondary meaning. See PetWarehouse v. Pets.Com, Inc., D2000-0105 (WIPO Apr. 13, 2000), wherein it was found that "pet" and "warehouse" are generic terms and therefore not subject to trademark protection.  See also Rollerblade, Inc. v. CBNO and Redican, D2000-0427 (WIPO Aug. 24, 2000), wherein it was found that “genericness, if established, will defeat a claim of trademark rights, even in a mark which is the subject of an incontestable registration.”

 

The Panel finds that all Complainant needs to prove to meet its burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is that it has a bona fide basis to make its complaint whether its mark is registered or not.  See Smart Design LLC v. Hughes, D2000-0993 (WIPO Oct. 18, 2000), wherein it was held that ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require Complainant to demonstrate ‘exclusive rights,’ but only that Complainant has a bona fide basis for making the Complaint in the first place.  See also BroadcastAmerica.com, Inc. v. Quo, DTV2000-0001 (WIPO Oct. 4, 2000), wherein it was found that Complainant has common law rights in BROADCASTAMERICA.COM, given extensive use of that mark to identify Complainant as the source of broadcast services over the Internet, and evidence that there is wide recognition with the BROADCASTAMERICA.COM mark among Internet users as to the source of broadcast services.

 

Furthermore, the quality of the evidence required to establish any rights is not as stringent as one might expect in a judicial proceeding, since there are no formal requirements as to the presentation of the evidence; this is particularly so as ICANN proceedings are multi-jurisdictional.  In fact, the Panel refers to the findings in CTV Television Inc. v. ICANADA CO. D2000-1407 (WIPO Dec. 13, 2000), wherein the following was stated:

[W]hile the appropriate rules of evidence are clearly not etched in stone for these types of proceedings and will be more relaxed than those of most courts given the summary nature of the proceedings and the universal desire to keep costs down, the Parties must still ensure that the evidence presented meets appropriate standards in terms of admissibility, relevance, materiality, weight, and last, but certainly not least, the "best evidence" rule.  At least one panel has commented on how affidavit evidence will be preferred to unsworn evidence.  Other panels have commented on the need to put forward the best evidence at the outset and, in effect, to "get it right the first time".  Minimum standards of proof are needed, even if hearsay evidence will be admissible, and unnecessary formalities should be avoided in this type of summary administrative proceeding.  The integrity of the UDRP process, which is intended to be highly transparent, along with its public credibility and acceptance, require attention to these principles.

 

It is the Panel’s opinion that the unregistered mark ISRAELFORFREE.COM, though not generic in and of itself, is nonetheless suggestive, as it is associated with the concept of offering free trips to Israel. Consequently, it benefits from a limited ambit of protection.

 

The Panel has attentively considered the case law pertaining to the burden that lays upon Complainant and specifically its decision in Coupons Inc. v. motherboards.com, FA 192249 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 4, 2003), wherein Complainant, a grocery coupons service provider, wished to establish rights in the marks COUPONS, INC and COUPONS.COM.  In that decision, it was held that given the descriptive nature of the marks in relation with the wares, a very high burden laid on the shoulders of Complainant in order to establish secondary meaning so as to rely on proprietary rights.  The case at hand differs from that case in many ways: (1) the mark at stake is used in relation with services rather than with wares; and (2) it not descriptive but solely suggestive and, consequently, there is no requirement of demonstrating any secondary meaning in the mark, but sufficient extensive and continuous use, so as  to have become distinctive of  Complainant.  See Cepheid Corporation v. Healthexpert LLC and John Johnson, D2001-1272 (WIPO Dec. 10, 2001), wherein it was held that “a suggestive mark is inherently distinctive and is entitled to be protected without proof of secondary meaning.”

 

Attorneys for Complainant may have been bold in choosing to present the evidence the way they have as this has led the Panel to entertain, during one stage of its advisement, some doubts as to the outcome of its analysis.  Ultimately though, taking into consideration the overall circumstances of Complainant’s evidence as well as that of Respondent, the Panel has come to the conclusion that Complainant has, in the final analysis, satisfactorily established rights in the mark.  Indeed, even merely being a domain name, in light of the evidence submitted, namely the declarations of Complainant’s representatives and marketing and advertising samples, as well as the fact that more than 5000 participants have used the services of Complainant, the Panel finds that Complainant has established proprietary rights.  One of the examples of such evidence ironically stems from Respondent’s strategy: the fact that it uses a hyperlink on its main website at <israel4u.com> aimed precisely at Canadian participants and that this link led to the domain name at stake is pellucid evidence that Complainant’s mark is not descriptive.

 

Identical or Confusingly Similar

                       

While the domain names are not identical to Complainant’s ISRAELFORFREE.COM mark, the Panel finds that they are confusingly similar.  The test of confusion in comparing the words or marks at issue is from the standpoint of the average unwary consumer, looking at the marks in their totality, having an imperfect recollection of the former.

 

The only difference is the use of the numeral “4” to siginify the word “for” and the different the top level domains.  The Panel relies on the findings set out in PrintForBusiness B.V v. LBS Horticulture, D2001-1182 (WIPO December 21, 2001), where the domain name “print4business.com” was found to be confusingly similar to “printforbusiness.com.”  See also eSales & Marketing, Inc. v. Traino, FA 156315 (Nat. Arb. Forum, June 19, 2003), where the domain name “candy2u.com” was found to be confusingly similar to “candy2you.com.”  See, e.g., America Online, Inc. v. iDomainNames.com, FA 93766 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 24, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name <go2AOL.com> was confusingly similar to Complainant’s AOL mark); 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).

 

The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has met its burden pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy inquires as to whether or not Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests vested in the domain dame.  Paragraph 4(c) provides examples of circumstances that can demonstrate the existence of such rights or legitimate interests: (i) use of, or preparations to use, the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; (ii) the fact that Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name; and (iii) legitimate non‑commercial or fair use of the domain name.

 

The Panel agrees with Complainant’s contention that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.

 

First, there is no relationship between the parties giving rise to any license, permission, or other right by which Respondent could own or use any domain names incorporating Complainant’s mark.

 

Second, the Panel agrees with Complainant in that there is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name.  In fact, Respondent’s use of the domain name on its website is limited to advertising and marketing Birthright travel packages in Canada.  Because of its limited use of the disputed domain name, the Panel is of the opinion that Respondent is not otherwise known as the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Great S. Wood Pres., Inc. v. TFA Assocs., FA 95169 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 5, 2000), wherein it was found that Respondent was not commonly known by the domain name <greatsouthernwood.com> where Respondent linked the domain name to <bestoftheweb.com>.

 

Third, the Panel finds that Respondent uses the similar domain name to compete in business, specifically to compete in Birthright travel packages in Canada.  Using Complainant’s mark in a domain name to compete in a similar area of business is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).  The Panel relies on the findings in Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003), wherein it was held 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 Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v. Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002) wherein it was found that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a financial services website, which competed with Complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

The Panel thus finds that Complainant has met its burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

It is often quite difficult to actually show bad faith with concrete evidence.  While bad faith cannot be presumed, once Complainant has presented some evidence pointing in that direction, it is then incumbent upon Respondent to either respond or explain why its conduct should not be construed as bad faith. 

 

The Panel’s understanding of the Policy is that although the initial burden to prove Respondent’s bad faith in the registration or the use of the disputed domain name relies squarely on the shoulders of Complainant and once it has done so, as it did in the present case, it is then incumbent upon Respondent to either justify or explain its business conduct (if not to demonstrate the contrary).  Failure to do so will, in some circumstances, enable the Panel to draw negative inferences.

 

In the case at hand, Complainant and Respondent are competitors in the travel business, marketing similar trips to Israel to the same customer base.  Respondent, by creating a hyperlink that aims specifically at Canadian participants, uses the disputed domain name in Canada, the territory of Complainant.  The Panel finds it hard to believe that one would register a confusingly similar domain name to reach the market of one of its competitors with pristine intentions.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor, constituting bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  The Panel adopts the findings of Surface Protection Indus., Inc. v. Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001), wherein it was found 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 S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) wherein it was found that Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with Complainant’s business.

 

Furthermore, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used similar domain name to create a likelihood of confusion between its and Respondent’s services.

 

The Panel also finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name is for commercial gain, constituting bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000), wherein bad faith was found where Respondent attracted users to a website sponsored by Respondent and created confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of that website).  See also Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000), wherein it was found 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).

 

Respondent has alleged that Complainant knew about its use.  In the delay between the registration of the disputed domain name and the start of these proceedings, Respondent committed to building good will in the domain name by investing in it and advertising with it.  See Mule Lighting, Inc. v. CPA, FA 95558 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2000), wherein no bad faith was found where Respondent has an active website that has been in use for two years and where there was no intent to cause confusion with Complainant’s website and business.  See, for example, DJF Assocs., Inc. v. AIB Communications, FA 95612 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 1, 2000), wherein it was found that Respondent has shown that it has a legitimate interest in the domain name because Respondent selected the name in good faith for its website, and was offering services under the domain name prior to the initiation of the dispute; New Piper Aircraft, Inc. v. Piper.com, FA 94367 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 2, 2000), wherein it was stated that Complainant’s failure to initiate a suit in over two years indicated that Complainant did not believe that Respondent intended to attract customers through confusion.  Although the Panel agrees that this is an important factor to consider, it cannot, in and of itself establish a lack of bad faith on behalf of Respondent.  Panel has made the finding that it is inconceivable that Respondent was not aware of Complainant’s web site located at <israelforfree.com> and given all the surrounding circumstances regarding the peculiar relationship between the parties, the Panel finds that the delay in instituting ICANN proceedings cannot preclude a finding of bad faith.

 

The Panel is therefore of the opinion that Complainant has met his burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <israel4free.com>, <israel4free.net>, and <israel4free.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Jacques A. Léger, Q.C., Panelist
Dated: January 30, 2004

 

 

 

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