The Martin-Brower Company, L.L.C. v. Cayman Trademark Trust c/o Domain Administrator and Generic Search Terms
Claim Number: FA0603000662976
Complainant is The Martin-Brower Company, L.L.C. (“Complainant”), represented by Peter Cooke, of Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP, 99 Bank Street, Suite 1420, Ottawa, ON K1P 1H4. Respondent is Cayman Trademark Trust c/o Domain Administrator and Generic Search Terms (“Respondent”), PO Box 533 WB, Georgetown, West Bay, Grand Caym GT KY.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <martinbrower.com>, registered with Bulkregister, Llc.
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 21, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 27, 2006.
On March 22, 2006, Bulkregister, Llc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <martinbrower.com> domain name is registered with Bulkregister, Llc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Bulkregister, Llc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Bulkregister, Llc. 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 March 31, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 20, 2006 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@martinbrower.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 25, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <martinbrower.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MARTIN-BROWER mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <martinbrower.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <martinbrower.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, The Martin-Brower Company, was founded in 1955 and carries on business in the United States and internationally as a provider of transportation and distribution services for restaurant food and supplies. Complainant holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the MARTIN-BROWER mark (Reg. No. 2,289,906 issued November 2, 1999).
Respondent registered the <martinbrower.com> domain name on July 9, 2001. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s commercial website that features links to transportation and trucking services that compete with Complainant.
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. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); 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.”).
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.
Complainant has sufficiently proved rights in the
MARTIN-BROWER mark based on Complainant’s registration of the mark with the
USPTO. See Am.
Online, Inc. v. Thomas P. Culver Enters., D2001-0564 (WIPO June 18, 2001)
(finding that successful trademark registration with the USPTO creates a
presumption of rights in a mark); see also Innomed Tech., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004)
(“Registration
of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the
mark.”).
Respondent’s
<martinbrower.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s MARTIN-BROWER mark, because Respondent’s domain name incorporates the
dominant features of Complainant’s mark, and omits a hyphen and adds the
generic top-level domain “.com.” The
Panel finds that such minor alterations to Complainant’s registered mark do not
negate the confusingly similar aspects of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Nat’l Cable Satellite Corp. v. Black Sun Surf Co., FA 94738 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 19, 2000)
(holding that the domain name <cspan.net>, which omitted the hyphen from
the trademark spelling, C-SPAN, is confusingly similar to the complainant's
mark); see also Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co. v. Club Car Executive
Transp., D2000-0611 (WIPO Sept. 18, 2000) (finding that removing a hyphen
in the domain names is not sufficient to differentiate the domain names from
the mark); see also Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545
(Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (“The addition of a top-level domain is
irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly
similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain
name.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant asserts that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <martinbrower.com> domain name. Once Complainant establishes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that respondent does not have 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 Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).
Respondent is using the <martinbrower.com> domain name to
redirect Internet users to Respondent’s commercial website that features links
to competing third-party websites.
Respondent’s use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s MARTIN-BROWER mark to redirect Internet users interested in
Complainant’s services to a website that offers similar services in competition
with Complainant is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of
goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial
or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media
Insight, FA 198959 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec.
5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona
fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair
use because the respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a website
that offered services that competed with those offered by the complainant under
its marks); see also Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain name
within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used
the domain name to take advantage of the complainant's mark by diverting
Internet users to a competing commercial site).
Moreover, Complainant asserts, without contradiction from Respondent, that Respondent is neither commonly known by the <martinbrower.com> domain name nor authorized to use a domain name featuring Complainant’s mark. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) a respondent is not a licensee of a complainant; (2) complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede that respondent’s domain name registration; (3) that respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where a respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from a complainant to use the trademarked name).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The Panel assumes that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to competing websites. Internet users accessing Respondent’s domain name may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name. Therefore, Respondent’s use of the <martinbrower.com> domain name amounts to bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if the respondent profits from its diversionary use of the complainant’s mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and the respondent fails to contest the complaint, it may be concluded that the respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent directed Internet users seeking the complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain).
Respondent is using the <martinbrower.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s commercial website that features links to competing third-party websites. The Panel finds that such use constitutes disruption of a competitor and is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding the respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with the complainant’s business); see also Puckett v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <martinbrower.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: May 8, 2006
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum