Camewould Limited v. Kaneta (HK) Enterprises Ltd.
Claim Number: FA0605000703613
Complainant is Camewould
Limited (“Complainant”), Rm 1806-8, 18/F, Ho Lik Centre, 66A Sha Tsui Road,
Tsuen Wan, Hong Kong. Respondent is Kaneta (HK) Enterprises Ltd. (“Respondent”), 23/F., Trend Centre,
Chaiwan Hong Kong.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <camewould.com>, registered with Domaindiscover.
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.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 12, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 18, 2006.
On May 15, 2006, Domaindiscover confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <camewould.com> domain name is registered with Domaindiscover and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Domaindiscover has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domaindiscover 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 May 22, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 12, 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@camewould.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 16, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (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 <camewould.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s CAMEWOULD mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <camewould.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <camewould.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Respondent registered the <camewould.com> domain name on November 21, 1998. Respondent is one of Complainant’s competitors in the market of designing and manufacturing tubular heating elements. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to its commercial website that features goods and services that are in direct competition 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 continuously and extensively used the CAMEWOULD mark since 1993 in connection with designing and manufacturing tubular heating elements. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), Complainant is not required to hold a trademark registration to establish rights in the CAMEWOULD mark. See British Broad. 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”); see also SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Masood, D2000-0131 (WIPO Apr. 13, 2000) (finding that the Rules do not require that the complainant's trademark or service mark be registered by a government authority or agency for such rights to exist).
For the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), Complainant has
established common law rights in the CAMEWOULD mark through continuous and
extensive use of the mark in connection with its goods and services since
1993. Accordingly, the Panel finds that
Complainant has proven substantial goodwill and recognition of the mark in
connection with its goods and services to establish secondary meaning and
common law rights in the CAMEWOULD mark for the purposes of Policy ¶
4(a)(i). See Fishtech, Inc. v. Rossiter, FA 92976
(Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 10, 2000) (finding that the complainant has common law
rights in the mark FISHTECH that it has used since 1982); see also Keppel TatLee Bank v. Taylor, D2001-0168
(WIPO Mar. 28, 2001) (“[O]n account of long and substantial use of [KEPPEL
BANK] in connection with its banking business, it has acquired rights under the
common law.”).
Respondent’s <camewould.com> domain name contains Complainant’s CAMEWOULD mark in its entirety and merely adds the top-level domain “.com.” As a result, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s common law mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to the complainant’s mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant); see also Blue Sky Software Corp. v. Digital Sierra, Inc., D2000-0165 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000) (holding that the domain name <robohelp.com> is identical to the complainant’s registered ROBOHELP trademark, and that the "addition of .com is not a distinguishing difference").
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent does not have rights or
legitimate interests in the <camewould.com> domain name. Complainant has the initial burden of proof
in establishing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the
domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima
facie case in support of its allegations, the burden then shifts to
Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). 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 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 has no right or legitimate interest is
sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that
such a right or legitimate interest does exist).
Complainant presents an
uncontested assertion that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to
redirect Internet users to its commercial website that
features goods and services that are in direct competition with Complainant,
presumably for commercial gain. The
Panel finds that Respondent’s use of a domain name that is identical to
Complainant’s common law mark to redirect Internet users to its website for
commercial gain is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services
under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy
¶ 4(c)(iii). See Computerized Sec.
Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s
appropriation of [Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to market products that compete
with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and
services.”); see also DLJ Long Term Inv. Corp. v.
BargainDomainNames.com, FA 104580 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2002) (“Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in
connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services because Respondent
is using the domain name to divert Internet users to <visual.com>, where
services that compete with Complainant are advertised.”); see also MSNBC Cable, LLC v. Tysys.com,
D2000-1204 (WIPO Dec. 8, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in
the famous MSNBC mark where the respondent attempted to profit using the
complainant’s mark by redirecting Internet traffic to its own website).
Additionally, Complainant asserts that Respondent is not
commonly known by the <camewould.com> domain name, and has never
been authorized to use Complainant’s CAMEWOULD mark in any manner. Based on the lack of evidence in the record
to suggest otherwise, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by
the disputed domain name. See Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA
96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not
have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark); see
also Compagnie
de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000)
(finding no rights or legitimate interest where the respondent was not commonly
known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant
to use the trademarked name).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant asserts that the <camewould.com>
domain name redirects Internet users to Respondent’s commercial website that
features goods and services that are in direct competition with Complainant,
presumably for commercial gain. The
Panel finds that Respondent’s use of a domain name that contains Complainant’s
mark in its entirety to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s competing
website is likely to cause confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with or
sponsorship of the website. The Panel
therefore concludes that the such registration and use of an identical domain
name for commercial gain amounts to bad faith registration and use pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt.,
FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent engaged
in bad faith use and registration by using domain names that were identical or
confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to redirect users to a website
that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also
Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's
prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to
Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from
the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”).
Moreover, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use the <camewould.com> domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s competing website constitutes disruption of a competitor and evidences bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert Internet users to a competitor's website. It is a reasonable inference that Respondent's purpose of registration and use was to either disrupt or create confusion for Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”); see also Franpin SA v. Paint Tools S.L., D2000-0052 (WIPO May 25, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent, a company financially linked to the complainant’s main competitor, registered and used the domain name in question to disrupt the complainant’s business).
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 <camewould.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: June 29, 2006
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page