PrintingForLess.com, Inc. v. Ace Printing
Inc. c/o Brent Milne
Claim Number: FA0512000616766
PARTIES
Complainant is PrintingForLess.com Inc. (“Complainant”), 100 PFL Way, Livingston,
MT 59047. Respondent is Ace Printing Inc. c/o Brent Milne (“Respondent”), 3360 S. 1500 W., Ogden, UT 84401.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <printingforless.us>,
registered with Enom, 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.
Daniel B. Banks, Jr., as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
(the “Forum”) electronically on December 29, 2005; the Forum received a hard
copy of the Complaint on January 3, 2006.
On December 30, 2005, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the domain name <printingforless.us>
is registered with Enom, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant
of the name. Enom, Inc. has verified
that Respondent is bound by the Enom, Inc. registration agreement and has
thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in
accordance with the U. S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution
Policy (the “Policy”).
On January 11, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of January 31, 2006 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint,
was transmitted to Respondent in compliance with Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules
for usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”).
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on January
31, 2006. This Response was not
received in electronic copy format and the Forum does not consider it to be in
compliance with usDRP Rule #5 (a).
However, due to the content of the Response, the undersigned did
consider it along with the other materials in this case.
February 7, 2006, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum
appointed Daniel B. Banks, Jr., as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant is the valid holder of the United States Service Mark PRINTINGFORLESS.COM, (Registration
Number 2,322,620), registered February 22, 2000, first used in commerce March
1, 1999. Complainant is the valid
holder of a United States Service Mark PRINTING
FOR LESS, (Registration Number 3,022,197), registered November 29, 2005,
first use in commerce March 31, 1999.
Complainant is the valid holder of a Canadian Trademark for PRINTING FOR LESS, (Registration
Number TMA630,082, File Number 1194737), registered May4, 2005. Complainant also holds a valid Certificate
of Registration for the text of the website located at the domain name <printingforless.com> and as such
the name and website contents are protected by all relevant intellectual
property laws.
The disputed domain name, <printingforless.us>, is confusingly similar to the Service Marks
used by Complainant.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
disputed domain name. It was registered
after the registration of Complainant’s domain name and Service Marks. Respondent has no substantial affiliation
with, nor is it known by the <printingforless.us>
name. It uses the site to direct users
to a website “under construction.”
The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad
faith. Complainant’s Registered Service
Marks are registered with the USPTO and as such, Respondent was placed on
constructive notice of Complainant’s mark.
Complainant is a well-known company that has appeared in national
publications and has engaged in extensive marketing and advertising. Respondent is attempting to capitalize on
Complainant’s mark as well as its reputation by registering and using a
confusingly similar domain name. Also,
Respondent is a former business partner of Complainant and from March 29, 2001
until March 19, 2003, provided printing services to Complainant on a contract
basis. As such, Respondent was fully
aware of Complainant’s name and marks and their usage in commerce for the
purposes of printing.
B. Respondent
Respondent filed a Response that was not in electronic copy format and
deemed by the Forum not to be in compliance with usDRP Rule #5, however, due to
its content, the undersigned considered the Response.
Respondent states that its attorney notified Complainant that the
disputed domain name was due to expire and was asked to transfer the domain’s
registrar information to them prior to expiration. Respondent says it attempted to do that but found that the domain
was locked due to this Complaint.
Respondent says it expected that Complainant would drop the Complaint so
that the domain lock would be released and the transfer could take place prior
to the expiration. Now the domain has
expired but if Respondent can still change the registrar information, it
will.
FINDINGS
DECISION
Accordingly, it is the decision of the Panel
that the disputed domain name, <printingforless.us>,
be transferred to Complainant.
Daniel B. Banks, Jr., Panelist
Dated: February 21, 2006
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page