DECISION

Invacare Corporation v. James Lee

Claim Number:  FA0304000153631

PARTIES

Complainant is Invacare Corporation, Elyria, OH, USA (“Complainant”) represented by Bradford J. Patrick, of Mansour Gavin Gerlack & Manos Co. LPA. Respondent is James Lee, Shu Lin City, TAIWAN (“Respondent”).

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <invacare.net>, registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

Sandra Franklin as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on April 4, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 8, 2003.

On April 15, 2003, Moniker Online Services, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <invacare.net> is registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Moniker Online Services, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker Online Services, Inc. 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 April 15, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of May 5, 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@invacare.net 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 May 9, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra Franklin as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

1. Respondent’s <invacare.net> domain name is identical to Complainant’s IVACARE mark.

2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <invacare.net> domain name.

3. Respondent registered and used the <invacare.net> domain name in bad faith.

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

FINDINGS

Complainant uses the INVACARE mark in relation to its distribution of home medical products for health and wellness to consumers and those who provide care.  Complainant has used the mark since 1971.  Complainant holds a registration for its INVACARE mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Reg. No. 1,243,496) and the European Union (Reg. No. 001368091). 

Respondent, James Lee,  registered the <invacare.net> domain name on April 27, 2002.  Respondent is making no use of the disputed domain name other than to offer the domain name registration up for sale.  Respondent’s homepage at <invacare.net> prominently advertises the domain name registration for sale and provides links to other websites.

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 draw such inferences it 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 and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established that it has rights in the INVACARE mark through registration and continuous use since 1971 in relation to the distribution of its home health care products.

Respondent’s <invacare.net> domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates Complainant’s entire mark and merely adds the top-level domain “.net” to the end.  The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when determining whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar.  Thus, Respondent’s domain name does not overcome a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.  See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to 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 Complainant’s registered ROBOHELP trademark, and that the "addition of .com is not a distinguishing difference").

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.  Thus, the Panel is permitted to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences in the Complaint as true.  See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant 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”).

Moreover, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances that could demonstrate rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.  When Complainant asserts a prima facie case against Respondent, the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that once Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to Respondent to provide credible evidence that substantiates its claim of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance that could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).

Respondent is making no use of the <invacare.net> domain name other than to offer the domain name registration for sale.  Respondent’s website prominently offers the domain registration for sale and provides links to other websites.  Respondent is making no other use of the domain name.  Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not engaging in a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is Respondent’s activity at the website a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See J. Paul Getty Trust v. Domain 4 Sale & Co., FA 95262 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2000) (finding rights or legitimate interests do not exist when one has made no use of the websites that are located at the domain names at issue, other than to sell the domain names for profit); 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); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. High Performance Networks, Inc., FA 95083 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent registered the domain name with the intention of selling its rights).

There is no evidence on record that Respondent is known as INVACARE or <invacare.net>.  Respondent is known to this Panel as James Lee, and there is nothing on record establishing otherwise.  Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Since Complainant’s mark is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Respondent had constructive notice of Complainant’s rights in the INVACARE mark.  Registration of an infringing domain name, despite actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights, is evidence of bad faith registration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, [2002] USCA9 115; 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) (finding that "[w]here an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be similar to another, one can infer an intent to confuse"); see also Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (holding that “there is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or constructively”).

Respondent’s only use of the <invacare.net> domain name has been to offer the domain name for sale.  The Panel infers from this behavior that Respondent’s intention when registering the domain name was merely to offer the domain name registration up for sale.  This type of behavior is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).  See Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc’y v. “Infa dot Net” Web Serv., FA 95685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that “general offers to sell the domain name, even if no certain price is demanded, are evidence of bad faith”); see also Banca Popolare Friuladria S.p.A. v. Zago, D2000-0793 (WIPO Sept. 3, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent offered the domain names for sale); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Avrasya Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., FA 93679 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent offered domain names for sale).

Thus, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <invacare.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Sandra Franklin, Panelist

Dated: May 19, 2003

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/501.html