Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is ARTec Systems Group, Inc., Huntington, NY, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Club Spa USA, West New York, NJ, USA ("Respondent") represented by John P. DeMaio.

The domain name at issue is "spaline.com", registered with Network Solutions.

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 a panelist in this proceeding.

Hon. Roger Kerans as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on January 31, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 6, 2001.

On February 2, 2001, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "spaline.com" is registered with Network Solutions and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions 5.0 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 February 8, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 28, 2001 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@spaline.com by e-mail.

A timely response was received and determined to be complete on February 27, 2001.

On March 6, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Roger Kerans as Panelist.

The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

A. Complainant

B. Respondent

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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."

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the 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.

The names are confusingly similar. It is correct as argued by the Respondent that the two parties use the word "line" in two different ways: The Complainant refers to a "line" of products, and the Respondent refers to "line" in the sense of the latest news. Most people would not be confused. Nevertheless, there is a reasonable possibility that a consumer may confuse the products advertised on the Respondent site with products of the Complainant, although I note the Complainant has not offered evidence of actual confusion

I accept that the Complainant has a reasonable and legitimate business interest in the name "SPALINE". But I accept also that Respondent also has a legitimate business and legal interest in the name in the context of a newsletter and service-and-product catalog for the day spa industry and interested consumers. The resolution of the resulting dispute must take place before a more traditional tribunal. This is not a proper case for a summary determination. The real dispute between the parties is not over a domain name but rather about which, if either, has in law the exclusive use of the mark "SPALINE". See Newport News v. VCV Internet, AF -0238 (eResolution July 18, 2000) (finding that the Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the domain name newportnews.com where Respondent is using the domain name in connection with a bona fide use of disseminating general information about the city of Newport News); Port of Helsinki v. Paragon Int’l Projects Ltd., D2001-0002 (WIPO Feb. 12, 2001) (finding rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, portofhelsinki.com, where the Respondent was using the domain name to provide information about services available in different ports around the world).

Although a finding of a legitimate business interest on the part of the Respondent disposes of this matter, I should add that I accept the statement of the Respondent that it had no prior knowledge of the Complainant and its products, and no intention to steal or divert its goodwill. Moreover, I accept that the claim for a large reward for a name change was nothing more than unauthorized posturing by a lawyer in the negotiation process.

.

Because the Respondent has established a legitimate business interest in the term SPALINE, and no bad faith has been shown, I refuse to cancel or transfer the domain name registration.