DECISION

 

Sonic-Crest Cadillac, LLC d/b/a Crest Hummer d/b/a Crest Cadillac v. Neil Hayes d/b/a Autozcape d/b/a Autozcape.com

Claim Number:  FA0311000212652

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Sonic-Crest Cadillac, LLC d/b/a Crest Hummer d/b/a Crest Cadillac (“Complainant”), represented by Jami M. Jackson of Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein L.L.P., Three Wachovia Center, 401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000, Charlotte, NC, 28202.  Respondent is Neil Hayes d/b/a Autozcape d/b/a Autozcape.com  (“Respondent”), 2976 Highrigger Drive, Nashville, TN 37217.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <crest-hummer.com>, <hummerofnashville.com> and <cadillacofnashville.com>, registered with Melbourne IT, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide (hereinafter “Internet Names Worldwide”).

 

PANEL

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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically November 19, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint November 24, 2003.

 

On November 20, 2003, Internet Names Worldwide confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <crest-hummer.com>, <hummerofnashville.com> and <cadillacofnashville.com> are registered with Internet Names Worldwide and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Internet Names Worldwide verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet Names Worldwide 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 December 1, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 22, 2003, 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@crest-hummer.com, postmaster@hummerofnashville.com and postmaster@cadillacofnashville.com by e-mail.

 

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On December 31, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      The domain names registered by Respondent, <crest-hummer.com>, <hummerofnashville.com> and <cadillacofnashville.com>, are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CREST HUMMER, CADILLAC OF NASHVILLE and HUMMER OF NASHVILLE marks.

 

2.      Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <crest-hummer.com>, <hummerofnashville.com> and <cadillacofnashville.com> domain names.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <crest-hummer.com>, <hummerofnashville.com> and <cadillacofnashville.com> domain names in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant established by extrinsic proof in this proceeding that it has operated a Cadillac motor vehicle dealership since March of 2002, and a Hummer motor vehicle dealership since July 17, 2002, in Nashville, Tennessee. Complainant uses the names CREST HUMMER, CADILLAC OF NASHVILLE and HUMMER OF NASHVILLE to promote these dealerships. In addition to using these names in commerce, Complainant obtained a registration for the CREST HUMMER mark in the state of Tennessee August 22, 2003, with a stated first date of use on July 17, 2002.

 

As an employee of Complainant, Respondent registered the <crest-hummer.com>, <hummerofnashville.com> and <cadillacofnashville.com> domain names July 17, 2002. These registrations were to be done on behalf of Complainant, during normal working hours and under Complainant’s name. Instead, Respondent registered the disputed domain names under the name of his company, Autozcape and autozcape.com.

 

Complainant paid Respondent $624.95 for the registration and transfer of the three disputed domain names to an entity going by the name Automark, Complainant’s chosen host for the domain names. Despite accepting and cashing the check, Respondent did not transfer the domain names.

 

However, on August 13, 2003, Respondent agreed to transfer the <crest-hummer.com> domain name to Complainant in exchange for an additional $20. to defray transfer costs. Currently, Complainant has been permitted by Respondent to operate a website at the <crest-hummer.com> domain name, although Respondent has still refused to transfer the domain name registration to Complainant.

 

Prior to permitting Complainant to use the <crest-hummer.com> domain name, Respondent used that domain name to host a website offering the sale of that domain name registration and the <hummerofnashville.com> domain name. Respondent also offered to sell these two domain name registrations on eBay, with a starting price of $2,004.

 

Of the two domain names that are not currently being “used” by Complainant, the <hummerofnashville.com> domain name is inactive, and the <cadillacofnashville.com> domain name links to a temporary “placeholder” Verio website. At no point has Respondent ever used the disputed domain names, or the CREST HUMMER, CADILLAC OF NASHVILLE and HUMMER OF NASHVILLE marks, in connection with any commercial enterprise.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

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.

 

Identical to and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established rights in the CREST HUMMER mark through registration of the mark in the State of Tennessee. Proof that it obtained a registration of the mark is sufficient to meet the burden established by Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Desktop Media, Inc. v. Desktop Media, Inc., FA 96815 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 12, 2001) (“[F]or the limited purposes of the domain name dispute resolution process[,] a low threshold of proof is all that is required to meet the first element”); see also Quality Custom Cabinetry, Inc. v. Cabinet Wholesalers, Inc., FA 115349 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2002) (finding that Complainant’s trademark registrations in Pennsylvania and New Jersey operated as evidence that Complainant had sufficient standing to bring a claim under the UDRP).

 

As for the CADILLAC OF NASHVILLE and HUMMER OF NASHVILLE marks, the Panel finds that Complainant sufficiently established that it has common-law rights in those marks. At least within the geographic area around Nashville, Complainant has supplied uncontested evidence to the Panel that it has established source identifying, secondary meaning associated with these marks, which is sufficient to establish rights in these marks under the Policy. 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 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 25:74.2 (4th ed. 2002) (The ICANN dispute resolution policy is “broad in scope” in that “the reference to a trademark or service mark ‘in which the complainant has rights’ means that ownership of a registered mark is not required–unregistered or common law trademark or service mark rights will suffice” to support a domain name Complaint under the Policy).

 

The domain names registered by Respondent are identical to Complainant’s marks. Each domain name duplicates one of Complainant’s marks, except for the elimination of the spaces between the words of the marks and/or the addition of a hyphen. Both of these variations are inconsequential for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Chernow Communications Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (holding “that the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark"); see also Hannover Ruckversicherungs-AG v. Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (finding <hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as spaces are impermissible in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as ‘.com’ or ‘.net’ is required in domain names”).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the <crest-hummer.com>, <hummerofnashville.com> and <cadillacofnashville.com> domain names are identical to Complainant’s CREST HUMMER, HUMMER OF NASHVILLE and CADILLAC OF NASHVILLE marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights to or Legitimate Interests

As Respondent did not submit a Response to the Complaint, the Panel will view the Complaint in a light most favorable to Complainant, and will draw all reasonable factual inferences in favor of Complainant. See Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertion in this regard”); 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”).

 

In this dispute, Respondent registered the disputed domain names on behalf of Complainant, but contrary to his employer’s or his principal’s instructions, Respondent created three domain name registrations in the name of Respondent’s company and not that of Complainant. As an employee or agent of Complainant, Respondent knew that it had no right to register the disputed domain names using Complainant’s marks and knew that any use of these domain names would be illegitimate. The fact that Respondent’s only actual use of the domain names in question has been to offer them for sale (with Complainant as the obvious intended purchaser) further underscores the fact that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Vinidex Pty. Ltd. v. Auinger, AF-0402 (eRes. Oct. 18, 2000) (finding that as a former employee, Respondent knew or should have known Complainant’s mark was in use as an integral part of the corporate name and as a trademark and that Respondent understood the legitimate interests and rights of Complainant and, by contrast, its own lack of interest or right.  This is sufficient for Complainant to establish that Respondent had no rights or interest in the domain name); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding Respondent’s conduct purporting to sell the domain name suggests it has no legitimate use).

 

The Panel considers Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint as additional evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names); see also BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v. Tweed, D2000-0418 (WIPO June 20, 2000) (“By not submitting a response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate, pursuant to ¶ 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name”).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <crest-hummer.com>, <hummerofnashville.com> and <cadillacofnashville.com> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant alleged that Respondent acted in bad faith.  As set out above, Complainant contended that Respondent registered the disputed domain names on behalf of and with instructions from Complainant, but registered them in the name of Respondent’s entity. In this context, Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names for any entity other than Complainant is evidence of bad faith. See Arab Bank for Inv. & Foreign Trade v. Akkou, D2000-1399 (WIPO Dec. 19, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use where Respondent was employed by Complainant’s business, was fully aware of the name of her employer, and made no use of the infringing domain name).

 

As for additional evidence that the domain names have been or are being used in bad faith, the Panel notes that Respondent attempted to sell two of the domain name registrations (the <crest-hummer.com> and <hummerofnashville.com> domain names) under circumstances where it was evident that Respondent was hoping to sell the domain name registrations to Complainant, for a price in excess of any costs Respondent could have incurred in the registration of the domain names. Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i), this is evidence that these two domain names were both used and registered in bad faith.  See Pocatello Idaho Auditorium Dist. v. CES Mktg. Group, Inc., FA 103186 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2002) ("What makes an offer to sell a domain [name] bad faith is some accompanying evidence that the domain name was registered because of its value that is in some way dependent on the trademark of another, and then an offer to sell it to the trademark owner or a competitor of the trademark owner"); see also Dynojet Research, Inc. v. Norman, AF-0316 (eResolution Sept. 26, 2000) (finding that Respondent demonstrated bad faith when he requested monetary compensation beyond out-of-pocket costs in exchange for the registered domain name).

 

Further, the failure to actually use the <hummerofnashville.com> and <cadillacofnashville.com> domain names equates to passive holding, and thus bad faith use, of these two domain names. Given the fact that Respondent attempted to sell the registrations for the <crest-hummer.com> and <hummerofnashville.com> domain names, the Panel finds that Respondent’s passive holding of the <cadillacofnashville.com> domain name veils an intent to attempt to sell this registration in the future. For these reasons, the Panel finds that the <cadillacofnashville.com> domain name was also registered and used in bad faith. See Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v. Sallen, D2000-0715 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (finding that mere passive holding of a domain name can qualify as bad faith if the domain name owner’s conduct creates the impression that the name is for sale); see generally Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (holding that, despite Respondent’s decision to passively hold the disputed domain name, “Respondent has made its intention clear and the continuing threat hanging over the Complainant’s head constitutes bad faith use”).

 

The Panel thus finds that Respondent registered and used the <crest-hummer.com>, <hummerofnashville.com> and <cadillacofnashville.com> domain names in bad faith, and that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.

 

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 <crest-hummer.com>, <hummerofnashville.com> and <cadillacofnashville.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist

Dated: January 14, 2004.

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page