Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
American Express Company v. Mo Askari
a/k/a USUK.org
Claim
Number: FA0304000155131
Complainant is
American Express Company, New York, NY (“Complainant”) represented
by Dianne K. Cahill, of American Express Company. Respondent is
Mo Askari a/k/a USUK.org, Phoenix, AZ (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <opensmallbusiness.com> and <opensmallbusiness.info>,
registered with Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.Com.
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.
John
J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on April 18, 2003; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on April 18, 2003.
On
May 2, 2003, Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.Com confirmed by e-mail to the
Forum that the domain names <opensmallbusiness.com> and <opensmallbusiness.info>
are registered with Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.Com and that Respondent
is the current registrant of the names. Innerwise,
Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.Com
has verified that Respondent is bound by the Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a
Itsyourdomain.Com 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 2, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
May 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@opensmallbusiness.com and postmaster@opensmallbusiness.info
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
June 4, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John
J. Upchurch 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.
Complainant
requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <opensmallbusiness.com>
and <opensmallbusiness.info> domain names are confusingly similar
to Complainant’s OPEN SMALL BUSINESS family of marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <opensmallbusiness.com> and <opensmallbusiness.info>
domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <opensmallbusiness.com>
and <opensmallbusiness.info> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
American Express Company, has several pending tradmark applications with the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for its
OPEN SMALL BUSINESS family of marks (egs.,
U.S. Ser. No. 78/081690 for the OPEN, SMALL BUSINESS NETWORK mark; U.S. Ser.
No. 78/081,685 for the OPEN THE SMALL BUSINESS NETWORK
mark; U.S. Ser. No.
78/081,193 for the OPEN NETWORK mark). Complainant has used these marks since
March 1, 2002 in connection with
its services for its American Express Cardmembers
and clients to help manage, plan and grow their small businesses. Complainant
advertises
its OPEN SMALL BUSINESS family of marks and services through
television, radio and print advertising, through statement inserts and
at its
<americanexpress.com> domain name. A portion of Complainant’s
<americanexpress.com> domain name is dedicated to
operating under the
OPEN SMALL BUSINESS family of marks.
Respondent, Mo
Askari a/k/a USUK.org, registered the <opensmallbusiness.com> and <opensmallbusiness.info>
domain names on March 10, 2002 and March 24, 2002, respectively. Respondent,
who is not licensed or authorized to use any of Complainant’s
registered marks,
registered the <opensmallbusiness.com> nine days after Complainant
announced the launch of its services under the OPEN SMALL BUSINESS family of
marks. Respondent has made
no use of the disputed domain names since their
registration over a year ago.
On April 24,
2002 Respondent sent an e-mail to Complainant in response to its cease and
desist letter pertaining to the dispute domain
names. In this correspondence,
Respondent expressed a willingness to transfer the disputed domain names
“without charge/fees” but
wondered aloud what “goodwill Gestures” Complainant
would be willing to make in exchange.
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.
Complainant has applied for trademark registrations of the OPEN SMALL
BUSINESS family of marks with the Principal Register of the
U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office and has demonstrated to the Panel that it has made widespread
and continuous use of the marks in
commerce that predate Respondent’s
registration of the disputed domain names. In the absence of a Response, there is no
challenge to Complainant's assertions as to ownership, use and reputation of
its OPEN SMALL
BUSINESS family of marks. Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant
has established rights in its OPEN SMALL BUSINESS family of marks sufficient to
grant standing to bring this claim under
the UDRP. See 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. Rights
in the mark can be established by pending trademark applications); see also Passion Group Inc. v. Usearch, Inc.,
AF-0250 (eResolution Aug. 10, 2000) (finding that Complainant established
sufficient rights by virtue of its distribution and advertising
to enable it,
at common law, to prevent another magazine by the same name from being passed
off as that of Complainant. Thus Complainant
established that it ‘has rights’
under the ICANN Policy).
Respondent’s <opensmallbusiness.com>
and <opensmallbusiness.info> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s OPEN SMALL BUSINESS family
of marks. Respondent’s domain names simply omit the word “network” from
Complainant’s
OPEN, SMALL BUSINESS NETWORK mark, and are slight variants of the
remainder of Complainant’s marks. These variations on Complainant’s
marks are
not sufficient to dispell the confusing similarity between Complainant’s marks
and Respondent’s domain names. See Down East Enter. Inc. v. Countywide Communications, FA 96613 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2001) (finding the domain name <downeastmagazine.com>
confusingly similar to Complainant’s
common law mark DOWN EAST, THE MAGAZINE OF
MAINE); see also Wellness Int’l
Network, LTD v. Apostolics.com, FA 96189 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 16, 2001)
(finding that the domain name <wellness-international.com> is confusingly
similar
to Complainant’s “Wellness International Network”).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that the <opensmallbusiness.com> and <opensmallbusiness.info>
domain names are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s OPEN SMALL BUSINESS family of marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant is
able to meet its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain names
by demonstrating that Respondent would
not be able to rely upon the provisions contained in Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i)-(iii) in
responding
to the Complaint. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277
(Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding where Complainant has asserted that
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests
with respect to the domain
name it is incumbent on Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence
rebutting this assertion because
this information is “uniquely within the
knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also 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).
The Panel also chooses to consider Respondent’s failure to contest the
Complaint as evidence that it lacks rights or legitimate interests
in the
disputed domain name. 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 Geocities v. Geociites.com,
D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in the domain name because the Respondent
never submitted
a response or provided the Panel with evidence to suggest otherwise).
Respondent does
not make any use of the <opensmallbusiness.com> and <opensmallbusiness.info>
domain names, and has not done so for over a year. As Respondent did not come
forward with any demonstrable preparations to use the
disputed domain name, the
Panel concludes that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or
services pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(c)(i) and that its inactivity is not a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(iii),
rendering both of these provisions inapplicable to Respondent. See
Vestel Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret
AS v. Kahveci, D2000-1244 (WIPO Nov. 11, 2000) (finding that “merely
registering the domain name is not sufficient to establish rights or legitimate
interests for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy”); see also Ziegenfelder Co. v. VMH Enter., Inc.,
D2000-0039 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding that failure to provide a product or
service or develop the site demonstrates that Respondents
have not established
any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name),
The uncontested
evidence submitted to the Panel indicates that Respondent, Mo Askari, is not
“commonly known by” the name OPEN SMALL
BUSINESS. Thus, the Panel concludes
that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply to Respondent. 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 RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001)
(Interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been
commonly known
by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to
prevail").
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the
<opensmallbusiness.com> and <opensmallbusiness.info>
domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent
registered and used the <opensmallbusiness.com> and <opensmallbusiness.info>
domain names in bad faith. Respondent
has not used the disputed domain names for over a year, instead choosing to
passively hold both of them.
Furthermore, Respondent’s correspondence with
Complainant reveal a thinly-veiled attempt to sell its two domain name
registrations
to Complainant. Complainant failed to follow through on
Respondent’s offer, but the fact remains that Respondent registered the
disputed
domain names almost immediately after Complainant announced its new
services under the OPEN SMALL BUSINESS family of marks. The Panel
infers from
these facts that Respondent was inspired to register the disputed domain names
because of the value they would have for
Complainant in the future, and
concludes that under these circumstances Respondent’s passive holding of the
disputed domain names
evidence bad faith use and registration. See Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) (finding that “it is possible, in certain
circumstances, for inactivity by the Respondent to amount
to the domain name
being used in bad faith”); see also 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).
The Panel thus
finds that Respondent registered and used the <opensmallbusiness.com>
and <opensmallbusiness.info> domain names in bad faith, and that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <opensmallbusiness.com> and <opensmallbusiness.info>
domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch , Panelist
Dated:
June 17, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/616.html