United States Postal Service v. United State Postal Service
Claim Number: FA0604000680842
Complainant is United States Postal Service (“Complainant”), represented by Christopher T. Pierson of Lewis and Roca, LLP, 40 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ, 85004. Respondent is United State Postal Service (“Respondent”), 618 Summerhaven, Forney, TX, 75126.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <uspsworld.com>, registered with Enom, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically April 14, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint April 17, 2006.
On April 17, 2006, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <uspsworld.com> domain name is registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Enom, Inc. verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, Inc. registration agreement and thereby has agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On April 21, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of May 11, 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@uspsworld.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 17, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum 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. The domain name that Respondent registered, <uspsworld.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s USPS mark.
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <uspsworld.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <uspsworld.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant was created as the Post Office Department July 26, 1775, and became the Unites States Postal Service, an Independent Establishment of the Executive Branch of the Government of the United States in 1971. Complainant delivers hundreds of millions of messages and billions of dollars in financial transactions each day to eight million business and 250 million Americans. Complainant holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the USPS mark (Reg. No. 2,423,574 issued January 23, 2001).
Respondent registered the <uspsworld.com> domain name May 9, 2005. Respondent has not made any use of the disputed domain name since registering it more than a year ago.
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 will draw such inferences as the Panel 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 Complainant to 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 established with extrinsic evidence in this
proceeding that it has formal legal rights in its USPS mark. The Panel accepts Complainant’s trademark
registration as evidence that it has rights in the USPS mark pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(a)(i). See Vivendi Universal
Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003)
(“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights
in the BLIZZARD mark.”); see also Innomed Techs.,
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 registered the disputed <uspsworld.com> domain
name, which the Panel finds is confusingly similar to Complainant’s USPS mark
because it merely adds the term “world,” which does not significantly
distinguish the domain name from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Arthur Guinness Son & Co.
(Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding
confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical
mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Sony
Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that
“[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive
word . . . nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall
impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark
SONY” and thus Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied).
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant established that it has rights to and legitimate interests in the mark contained in its entirety within the disputed domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden is on Complainant to prove Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant has made a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”); see also Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”).
Respondent has not made any use of the <uspsworld.com> domain name since registering it May 9, 2005. Internet users who seek out the resultant website are directed to a website that does not display any information, indicating that the domain name is not associated with any websites. The Panel holds that Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant’s marks but has not posted any content at the resultant website for more than a year. The Panel finds that this passive holding is not a bona fide offering of a good or service pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See AT&T Corp. v. Domains by Brian Evans, D2000-0790 (WIPO Sept. 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent did not provide any documentation on the existence of its alleged company that might show what the company’s business was, or how the company’s years of existence, if it ever existed, might mesh with the complainant’s trademark claims); see also LFP, Inc. v. B & J Props., FA 109697 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2002) (A respondent cannot simply do nothing and effectively “sit on his rights” for an extended period of time when that the respondent might be capable of doing otherwise).
Moreover, Complainant asserts, without contradiction from
Respondent, that Respondent is neither commonly known by the <uspsworld.com>
domain name nor authorized to use a domain name featuring Complainant’s
mark. Despite the WHOIS information
indicating that Respondent is “United State Postal Service,” a minor
misspelling of Complainant’s name, the Panel finds that Respondent cannot be
commonly known by this disputed domain name that contains a mark designated to
a part of the United States Government, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See City News & Video v.
Citynewsandvideo, FA 244789 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 5, 2004) (“Although
Respondent’s WHOIS information lists its name as ‘citynewsandvideo,’ there is
no evidence before the Panel to indicate that Respondent is, in fact, commonly
known by the disputed domain name <citynewsandvideo.com> pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(c)(ii).”); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Dough, FA 245971 (Nat. Arb. Forum
May 5, 2004) (finding that although “the WHOIS information for the
<yasexhoo.com> domain name states that the registrant is YASEXHOO . . .
this alone is insufficient to show that Respondent is commonly known by the
domain name.”).
The Panel finds Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant also alleged that Respondent acted in bad
faith. Respondent has not posted any
content at the website associated with the <uspsworld.com> domain
name. Respondent has held the
respective registration for more than a year.
With no content associated at the website and no evidence of
Respondent’s preparation to use the disputed domain name, the Panel concludes
that Respondent registered and used the <uspsworld.com> domain
name in bad faith, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Pharmacia &
Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or
legitimate interests where the respondent failed to submit a response to the
complaint and had made no use of the domain name in question); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Kloszewski, FA 204148 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2003) (“Respondent's
passive holding of the <aolfact.com> domain name for over six months is
evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain
name.”).
The Panel finds Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <uspsworld.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: May 31, 2006.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum